theduran--2020-02-09--Dr Luke  v Kesha — #MeToo Hits The Buffers

While former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was fighting for his life in one American courtroom , another media fixer scored a big victory in another one .
if you haven ’ t heard of Lukasz Gottwald that is because he is a music producer rather than an artist .
Producers don ’ t generally get a lot of credit with the general public , even though a good producer can turn a run-of-the-mill song into a monster hit .
Dr Luke was all but unknown to the public until he was accused of the aggravated rape of one of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her first name Kesha – sometimes styled Ke $ ha – was a teenager when she enjoyed her first taste of success .
A talented songwriter and occasional actress as well as a performer , she soon hooked up with Dr Luke .
Her big breakthrough came in 2010 with the release of her debut album Animal which was well received worldwide peaking at number 12 on the American Billboard chart and making the top twenty in many other jurisdictions .
Sadly , as has often happened in the music world , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Kesha was soon demanding a bigger slice of the pie .
Her mother appears to have been central to the following litigation which was augmented with an astonishing claim , namely that Dr Luke had drugged Kesha and raped her on the night of October 5 , 2005 .
This begs at least three questions : why did she not report this rape at the time , or even seek medical attention , and why did she continue to work with him ?
Barbara Ziv may have a convoluted explanation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer is that this rape never happened .
In spite of Kesha being young and attractive , there is no suggestion that he had any sexual interest in her , their relationship being strictly professional .
This is not too surprising , because contrary to feminist dogma , not all men keep their brains inside their trousers , and Dr Luke has worked with many other attractive young women , one of whom would be Kesha ’ s undoing .
In February 2016 , she told Lady Gaga that Dr Luke had also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill Cosby accusers , Miss Perry is a class act , and refused to jump on the false rape bandwagon .
Clearly , Kesha told this vile lie hoping to encourage other false accusers to do so , thereby bolstering her own false claim .
This has now led to Judge Jennifer Schecter finding against her , and ordering her to pay Dr Luke ’ s legal fees of $ 373 , 671.88 after a hearing in the still ongoing litigation .
Last month , Kesha whined to The Irish Times that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m worried about is there ’ s such a culture of cancel culture [ that ] if you say the wrong thing , your whole career and livelihood and everything you worked so hard for is , hashtag , cancelled.
” She didn ’ t say what happens to innocent men when people believe the wrong thing .
There is another “ victim ” here , the big-hearted Taylor Swift who donated $ 250,000 towards her legal fees .
Kesha Sebert would do well now to repay that gift and drop or at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an even bigger fool of herself , and perhaps faces financial ruin .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
While former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was fighting for his life in one American courtroom, another media fixer scored a big victory in another one.
if you haven’t heard of Lukasz Gottwald that is because he is a music producer rather than an artist. Producers don’t generally get a lot of credit with the general public, even though a good producer can turn a run-of-the-mill song into a monster hit. Dr Luke was all but unknown to the public until he was accused of the aggravated rape of one of his prospects. Kesha Sebert who goes by her first name Kesha – sometimes styled Ke$ha – was a teenager when she enjoyed her first taste of success. A talented songwriter and occasional actress as well as a performer, she soon hooked up with Dr Luke.
Her big breakthrough came in 2010 with the release of her debut album Animal which was well received worldwide peaking at number 12 on the American Billboard chart and making the top twenty in many other jurisdictions.
Sadly, as has often happened in the music world, the artist had different aspirations from the management, and Kesha was soon demanding a bigger slice of the pie. Her mother appears to have been central to the following litigation which was augmented with an astonishing claim, namely that Dr Luke had drugged Kesha and raped her on the night of October 5, 2005. This begs at least three questions: why did she not report this rape at the time, or even seek medical attention, and why did she continue to work with him? Barbara Ziv may have a convoluted explanation for that, but the simple and obvious answer is that this rape never happened. In spite of Kesha being young and attractive, there is no suggestion that he had any sexual interest in her, their relationship being strictly professional.
This is not too surprising, because contrary to feminist dogma, not all men keep their brains inside their trousers, and Dr Luke has worked with many other attractive young women, one of whom would be Kesha’s undoing.
In February 2016, she told Lady Gaga that Dr Luke had also raped Katy Perry. Unlike most of the Bill Cosby accusers, Miss Perry is a class act, and refused to jump on the false rape bandwagon. Clearly, Kesha told this vile lie hoping to encourage other false accusers to do so, thereby bolstering her own false claim. This has now led to Judge Jennifer Schecter finding against her, and ordering her to pay Dr Luke’s legal fees of $373, 671.88 after a hearing in the still ongoing litigation.
Last month, Kesha whined to The Irish Times that “I just think what I’m worried about is there’s such a culture of cancel culture [that] if you say the wrong thing, your whole career and livelihood and everything you worked so hard for is, hashtag, cancelled.”
She didn’t say what happens to innocent men when people believe the wrong thing.
There is another “victim” here, the big-hearted Taylor Swift who donated $250,000 towards her legal fees. Kesha Sebert would do well now to repay that gift and drop or at least settle this action before she makes an even bigger fool of herself, and perhaps faces financial ruin.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-08--Elizabeth Warren Lied and the News Media Have Ignored It

During the Democratic candidates ’ debate on February 7th , Elizabeth Warren said that “ everyone on this stage except Amy and me is either a billionaire or is receiving help from PACs that can do unlimited spending ” and the ABC ‘ news ’ crew failed to call her out on the lie , and even Bernie Sanders ( who receives no help from any billionaire and who also refuses PAC money ) declined to call her out on it .
Furthermore , according to Forbes , on November 18th , “ Here Are The Billionaires Funding The Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received donations from six billionaires , and Amy Klobuchar has received donations from 21 billionaires .
Only one candidate received no money from any billionaire : one billionaire had tried to donate $ 470 to Sanders ’ s campaign , but as soon as it was called to his attention , he ordered the money returned to the donor .
Huffington Post headlined on February 8th “ Democrats Bash Michael Bloomberg For Trying To Buy The Nomination ” , and reported that , Warren noted that “ Everyone on this stage except Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or is receiving help from PACs that can do unlimited spending … I think the way we build a democracy going forward is not billionaires reaching in their own pockets , or people sucking up to billionaires.
” And their reporter likewise failed to point out that the assertion from her was a lie .
Was it a lie ?
Or was Warren simply not aware that six billionaires had donated to , and her campaign had actually received and kept money from , six billionaires ?
Wouldn ’ t that be remarkably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , given that most of the former supporters whom she has lost have gone to Sanders — the only candidate who does reject both PAC money and billionaires ’ money — a reasonable assumption would be that she was quite conscious of her assertion ’ s overstating her lack of corruption and understating Sanders ’ s lack of corruption .
Consequently , the reasonable interpretation of all this would be : Elizabeth Warren lied and the ‘ news ’ media have simply ignored it .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse
During the Democratic candidates’ debate on February 7th, Elizabeth Warren said that “everyone on this stage except Amy and me is either a billionaire or is receiving help from PACs that can do unlimited spending” and the ABC ‘news’ crew failed to call her out on the lie, and even Bernie Sanders (who receives no help from any billionaire and who also refuses PAC money) declined to call her out on it. Furthermore, according to Forbes, on November 18th, “Here Are The Billionaires Funding The Democratic Presidential Candidates”, Elizabeth Warren has received donations from six billionaires, and Amy Klobuchar has received donations from 21 billionaires. Only one candidate received no money from any billionaire: one billionaire had tried to donate $470 to Sanders’s campaign, but as soon as it was called to his attention, he ordered the money returned to the donor. Huffington Post headlined on February 8th “Democrats Bash Michael Bloomberg For Trying To Buy The Nomination”, and reported that,
Warren noted that “Everyone on this stage except Amy and me is either a billionaire, or is receiving help from PACs that can do unlimited spending … I think the way we build a democracy going forward is not billionaires reaching in their own pockets, or people sucking up to billionaires.”
And their reporter likewise failed to point out that the assertion from her was a lie.
Was it a lie? Or was Warren simply not aware that six billionaires had donated to, and her campaign had actually received and kept money from, six billionaires? Wouldn’t that be remarkably sloppy from her? On the other hand, given that most of the former supporters whom she has lost have gone to Sanders — the only candidate who does reject both PAC money and billionaires’ money — a reasonable assumption would be that she was quite conscious of her assertion’s overstating her lack of corruption and understating Sanders’s lack of corruption.
Consequently, the reasonable interpretation of all this would be: Elizabeth Warren lied and the ‘news’ media have simply ignored it.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-08--Media remains silent on OPCW Syria hoax & brutal ‘moderate rebel’ execution of civilians (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss new evidence from the OPCW leaks that reveal the @ @ @ @ @ regard to the alleged chemical weapons strike in Douma , Syria .
Subscribe to The @ @ @ @ @ us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on @ @ @ @ @ HOUSE OF COMMONS PRESENTATION CONCERNING OPCW LEAKS ABOUT DOUMA .
Organisation for the Prohibition of @ @ @ @ @ Leaks Reveal the International Community was Misled with Regard to the Alleged Chemical Weapons Incident @ @ @ @ @ 2018 Liked it ?
Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon !

Switch to the dark mode that's kinder on your eyes at night time.
Switch to the light mode that's kinder on your eyes at day time.


Getting Out

jezail.org 02/07/20 – Some years ago , this writer , having carried a rifle in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation , found myself at a think tank conference advocating that the US should get it ’ s soldiers out of Afghanistan and just get out .
I thought it was a bad idea before any American boots hit the ground .
I was talking to the infamous Ambassador Robin Raphel , who is probably the person most responsible for the Taliban ever rising from obscurity to what it became .
Her eyes widened in horror and she bellowed out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British : “ Do you Knoooow what would happen if we ‘ just get out ? '
” The question was supposed to be rhetorical but I did and do know what it would look like .
I saw how the Soviets did it .
I had penetrated the Soviet lines of defense around Kabul in August of 1988 and stole a city bus to joyride and take some pictures .
Gorbachev had already announced that the Soviets were going to pull out .
Kabul was in pretty much the same state as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a thick cloud of fear and death hanging over it .
Things didn ’ t go exactly as planned because , as luck would have it , Zia , the dictator of Pakistan was assassinated that day .
But that ’ s another story… Those of you out there who have read jezail.org previously are familiar with the jezail.org point of view and understand that we are passionate advocates for an American withdrawal from Afghanistan , and indeed , elsewhere from South Asia to the Middle East .
I do however have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Code Pink style “ experts ” who routinely opine on this subject .
It is not because jezail.org wants to “ project American power ” into any Muslim countries .
We do not advocate and deeply despise the Brzezinski/MacKinder imperialist objectives and always will .
But jezail.org does believe in freedom .
That concept may be obscure to entitled American millennials flash mobbing NYC subway turnstyles .
But we do know what to do if there is tank or a foreign goon squad parked on your street corner .
Jezail.org has been there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use a Kalashnikov for a pillow .
With that kind of experience we write this projection on how to get out of Afghanistan and what to look for if they ever get serious about GTFO , ( GET THE FXCK OUT ) .
In particular , this writer was in Afghanistan at a key transition point in time , 1988 .
The previously unreliable Communist Army of Afghanistan was much like the Afghan Army of today .
Most of them were trying to flee or defect to the Mujahedin by that summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem for the Mujahedin .
For one thing , they needed people inside the Afghan communist army ( DRA ) for information .
For another , the number of Soviet trained defectors was overwhelming .
The Muj simply could not afford to feed , house or arm the numbers willing to defect .
Ultimately , they had no choice .
Capturing DRA forts became an event with very few shots fired .
It was a matter of surrounding the post and , as night fell , a few bullhorns encouraged a garrison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ring out in the night from inside the fort , the gates would swing open and out would come a trained and armed force , leaving behind the bodies of some dead officers and reems of papers tracking the “ loyalty ” of each conscript .
However as disloyal or unmotivated soldiers left the Communist ranks , an important change occurred .
Few outside observers noticed .
The Communist soldiers left behind had their backs up against a wall .
Resistance in Kabul stiffened significantly .
By 1988 , the Mujahedin respected the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the force that was left had nothing to lose , was cornered and deeply hated them .
They became just as unafraid to die as the Mujahedin had become .
It was a very strange state of affairs .
But this is war .
The Afghan Army of today is likely in much the same situation .
There are some issues like pay that are still a serious problem .
The Taliban pay their people better than the Kabul regime .
But the same dynamic as described above is almost certainly at play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their backs up against a wall .
It ’ s pretty likely that those conscripts that are not welded to the existing force , are melting into the night at this moment .
It ’ s also likely that they are not all volunteering to the Taliban because , unlike the Mujahedin of the 1980 ’ s , the Taliban are a Pashtun chauvinist organization that really has no room for any of Afghanistan ’ s other minorities ( who actually outnumber the Pashtun ) .
They can not hide this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also probably worthless as fighters given the less than half hearted US training regime which jezail.org has documented for years .
As we look at the statements coming from STATE and Alice Wells in particular , we see the same empty moronic reasoning that has been has been foisted on us for decades .
This week , Alice Wells is talking about the need to interdict poppy cultivation because it is a key source of Taliban funding .
What she does not say is that the US , through its ’ exorbitant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Taliban budget .
It must also be pointed out that the money that Pakistan gives to the Taliban comes with strings attached which keep the Taliban an instrument of Pakistani foreign policy .
Opium money , by contrast gives individual commanders in the field a little more room to negotiate and make deals on a local basis .
Opium money gives them some independence from Pakistani control .
Jezail.org has long advocated that the only way negotiators will ever make any headway with Taliban leadership is to deal with them as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monolithic entity which STATE still desperately pretends they are .
Making local deals through lower level commanders takes control out of the hands of uber bureaucrats and super grades and puts it into the hands of lower level officers .
This is unacceptable to empire building control freaks .
At this point , the “ talks ” in Doha are theater through which people like Alice Wells maintain control of a fat AID budget that defies oversight or auditors .
Why would a power hungry bureaucrat ever give that up ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambitious bureaucrat can ever get .
With three rigged national elections behind them and an epic history of corruption , does anybody doubt that the AID money is a source of massive corruption and patronage ?
It leaches its ’ way back into the US political system as well as poisoning the government we are allegedly trying to prop up .
Washington lobbyists have known about this since the days of Congressman Charllie Wilson .
Herds of pundits point to Afghan corruption but Americans are now getting glimpses of how our American political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa Caucus .
They can finally see behind the high moral hyperbole at some pretty ugly sausage making .
With new statements from Alice Wells fretting over the well being of Baluchis , Uighurs and the alleged control by the Taliban of opium production in Afghanistan , it is clear that STATE is fishing for new reasons to stay on in Afghanistan .
We ’ ve been through so many of these bogus excuses .
Beginning with 911 and Bin laden , to regime change to “ terrorism ” in general to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rare earth minerals , we have been lied to with new whoppers every other month and some trillion US taxpayer bucks have vanished into the desert .
Now it ’ s opium .
Now they ’ re concerned about opium .
Never mind that historically , opium and cocaine have made their way to the US on military planes in other wars and most of the Afghan opium is , we are told , destined for Europe and Russia .
Alice Wells ’ concerns are indicators that STATE has no interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As they have many times before , they will claim that the job is not done until the new problem that they just came up with is fixed .
It ’ s called moving the goal posts .
If ever there will be a path to leaving Afghanistan for America , it will not look like this .
Jezail.org wishes to suggest what kinds of events and diplomatic waypoints Americans should look for to mark progress toward getting out .
We should know what to expect .
But Americans have no idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , jezail.org identifies some of the things one should expect to see in a realistic approach to leaving Afghanistan without simply handing it over to the Taliban and Pakistan , abandoning those Afghans who have strived to help us for decades .
We also don ’ t think it ’ s a particularly good idea to leave a power vacuum next to the nuclear tipped Islamic Kleptocracy of Pakistan either .
We just don ’ t think that America can fight its ’ way to solving these problems .
This is a job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the monsters of Foggy Bottom .
1 .
Reduce Military Budget for All Wars and Finally Cut off Pakistan Entirely A path to “ peace ” in Afghanistan may not even be realistic and the reality of getting out of Afghanistan is by leaving , not talking about it .
We know that .
However , we have concerns because the violence and chaos we leave behind will be destabilizing to two countries that have nukes , delivery systems and are in a high state of tension .
As we noted above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a viable Kabul Government could be left standing provided the US and other countries will continue to support it .
The American taxpayer will not underwrite the kind of massive budget that they ’ ve had shoved down their throats for years .
A real cost for what we would need to do would be $ 5-10 billion/year .
It ’ s a ballpark figure but it would not be in the hundreds or even tens of billions we have been forced to accept .
So that would be one waypoint or identifiable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget .
The costs and tempo of operations would have to diminish dramatically .
This figure does not include the cost of air power because it may no longer be viable given the possibility of MANPADS in the hands of the Taliban .
However , by removing massive influxes of US cash to AFPAK it will likely cause belt tightening and reduce Taliban capability .
So what you ’ d be looking for is a fixed modest budget and the final total cutting off all funds and other aid to Pakistan .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further reduced .
The need for diplomatic staff sending Christmas greetings from Kabul and saving dying puppies in the streets of Kabul would be gone .
If it ’ s American and not in combat ready form , it ’ s gone .
If you can ’ t shoot , pack and go now .
This will not be Saigon .
The idea that the US is in any way building or even trying to build a government in Afghanistan is a lie and beyond our competence .
What we can do is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feed a Kabul regime to stand on its ’ own and fight its ’ own existential battles .
This they will do .
They have no choice .
It wasn ’ t until the Soviets themselves collapsed that the Najibullah regime came down .
So getting out would definitely entail a much more serious program to stand up an effective Afghan defense force than previously existed .
It has to be remembered that Afghans were once among the most formidable fighters on the planet .
They defeated the Soviet army without anything but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes that the failure to stand up an effective Afghan national Army has been a deliberate sabotaging done by our own diplomats military professionals who have investment portfolios in Pakistan and other conflicting motives .
Change the Logistic Path Over to Chabahar .
This is the most ambitious part of what needs to happen .
There is no getting around it .
The supply line through Pakistan is simply stupid and self defeating .
But there is an alternative .
Iran .
The port of Chabahar is already being used by India to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kabul regime .
The bad news for Washington is that some form of limited diplomatic reset will be necessary .
It is long over due .
Iran is not our enemy and never was .
This has been a myth foisted on us all by Israeli interests and some oil concerns who spread a lot of money around Washington to perpetuate this myth .
Further more , Iran has always been keen to mend a relationship with the US as we have much in common .
They are at least as concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment of a Taliban run Afghanistan and have no illusions about Pakistan whose leadership is trusted by no one .
It should also be pointed out that right now , Iran is apparently exploring ways to end years of hostility with the Saudis .
This sea shift makes for an opportune time for a change in diplomatic direction in Washington .
A key pillar of US hostility toward Iran is likely melting .
However it would be wise to not be overly ambitious in any diplomatic initiative with Iran due to a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not soon forget .
It ’ s not time to break out the cake and go looking for “ moderates ” .
However , working with the already existing Indian government supply line through Chabahar , there is room for some kind of arrangement .
This would also be an indication of a serious effort to leave Afghanistan for the US .
It would be a move that Iran would welcome and likely facilitate as long as it were not percieved to be some kind of Imperial Trojan Horse .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do an end run on the hold they have had on getting money from the US .
More diplomacy by real diplomats , not sheep dipped CIA professionals forever in search of enemies would be necessary .
In addition to opening up a dialog with Iran aimed at securing an alternative logistical path into Afghanistan , talks would also have to take place with all other countries sharing a border with Afghanistan in order to assess what their objectives are .
There is little doubt that many of them would like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is a real concern .
There are plenty of Pakistani military officials who openly advocate annexing chunks of Afghanistan for themselves .
Pakistan is already issuing Pakistani ID to Afghans as well as building madrassas in eastern Afghanistan .
A way to balance this appetite may well be to talk with the larger regional players .
China and Russia may be able to influence border states to curb their appetites .
China ’ s Belt and Road strategy needs regional stability to work .
This initiative to align America with regional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by an entirely new diplomatic team .
America has relied on the same failed old hands for decades in spite of the fact that their entire careers have been marked by failure and wars .
Changing diplomatic direction will mean getting rid of virtually all senior level diplomats for at least three tiers from the top down .
Our senior diplomat , Zalmay Khalilzad has brought failure to every major endeavor he has touched !
Yet , he seems to have becoma a Viceroy for American empire in Afghanistan and is the chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doha talks would end in favor of a more piecemeal approach to “ Taliban ” insurgents .
Local , commander to commander arrangements are how Afghanistan has historically worked through its problems .
The famous commander from the Panshir Valley , Ahmad Shah Massoud was very effective this way .
An American Army officer , Maj. Jim Gant also made impressive gains with this approach as well .
It has long been known that a deal over a pot of tea can be very much more effective than a midnight raid .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diplomatic leadership will oppose and actively sabotage this kind of effort as they have in the past .
For a variety of reasons , lower level liaison and deal making , cuts them out of making an Afghan solution .
Maj. Gant ’ s career was ended primarily for this reason .
So the old flag officer command and super grade civil service primacy would have to be ended .
This is absolutely necessary to do as super grades and flag officers have collectively demonstrated over the last 19 years an unwillingness or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state for America ’ s longest war .
It is becoming increasingly clear to ever more Americans that our body politic has come to believe that they are rulers of an empire .
The clarity of this realization contrasts with a vague vision of what an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan would look like .
Any one or all of the points listed above would be indicators of a real intent to get out of this protracted imperial debacle before it follows the path of Elphinstone .
If none of these things occur , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more than likely insincere .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
jezail.org 02/07/20 – Some years ago, this writer, having carried a rifle in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, found myself at a think tank conference advocating that the US should get it’s soldiers out of Afghanistan and just get out. I thought it was a bad idea before any American boots hit the ground. I was talking to the infamous Ambassador Robin Raphel, who is probably the person most responsible for the Taliban ever rising from obscurity to what it became. Her eyes widened in horror and she bellowed out in an affected stentorian accent that almost sounded British: “Do you Knoooow what would happen if we ‘just get out?'” The question was supposed to be rhetorical but I did and do know what it would look like. I saw how the Soviets did it. I had penetrated the Soviet lines of defense around Kabul in August of 1988 and stole a city bus to joyride and take some pictures. Gorbachev had already announced that the Soviets were going to pull out. Kabul was in pretty much the same state as it is now, surrounded and isolated with a thick cloud of fear and death hanging over it. Things didn’t go exactly as planned because, as luck would have it, Zia, the dictator of Pakistan was assassinated that day. But that’s another story…
Those of you out there who have read jezail.org previously are familiar with the jezail.org point of view and understand that we are passionate advocates for an American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and indeed, elsewhere from South Asia to the Middle East. I do however have a bone to pick about Afghanistan and Code Pink style “experts” who routinely opine on this subject. It is not because jezail.org wants to “project American power” into any Muslim countries. We do not advocate and deeply despise the Brzezinski/MacKinder imperialist objectives and always will. But jezail.org does believe in freedom. That concept may be obscure to entitled American millennials flash mobbing NYC subway turnstyles. But we do know what to do if there is tank or a foreign goon squad parked on your street corner. Jezail.org has been there. We know what it is like to use a Kalashnikov for a pillow. With that kind of experience we write this projection on how to get out of Afghanistan and what to look for if they ever get serious about GTFO, (GET THE FXCK OUT).
In particular, this writer was in Afghanistan at a key transition point in time, 1988. The previously unreliable Communist Army of Afghanistan was much like the Afghan Army of today. Most of them were trying to flee or defect to the Mujahedin by that summer. To my surprise, it was a problem for the Mujahedin. For one thing, they needed people inside the Afghan communist army (DRA) for information. For another, the number of Soviet trained defectors was overwhelming. The Muj simply could not afford to feed, house or arm the numbers willing to defect. Ultimately, they had no choice. Capturing DRA forts became an event with very few shots fired. It was a matter of surrounding the post and, as night fell, a few bullhorns encouraged a garrison to defect. A few shots would ring out in the night from inside the fort, the gates would swing open and out would come a trained and armed force, leaving behind the bodies of some dead officers and reems of papers tracking the “loyalty” of each conscript. However as disloyal or unmotivated soldiers left the Communist ranks, an important change occurred.
Few outside observers noticed. The Communist soldiers left behind had their backs up against a wall. Resistance in Kabul stiffened significantly. By 1988, the Mujahedin respected the DRA. They came to understand that the force that was left had nothing to lose, was cornered and deeply hated them. They became just as unafraid to die as the Mujahedin had become. It was a very strange state of affairs. But this is war.
The Afghan Army of today is likely in much the same situation. There are some issues like pay that are still a serious problem. The Taliban pay their people better than the Kabul regime. But the same dynamic as described above is almost certainly at play. The defenders who have not defected have their backs up against a wall. It’s pretty likely that those conscripts that are not welded to the existing force, are melting into the night at this moment. It’s also likely that they are not all volunteering to the Taliban because, unlike the Mujahedin of the 1980’s, the Taliban are a Pashtun chauvinist organization that really has no room for any of Afghanistan’s other minorities (who actually outnumber the Pashtun). They cannot hide this. The defectors likely headed in their direction are also probably worthless as fighters given the less than half hearted US training regime which jezail.org has documented for years.
As we look at the statements coming from STATE and Alice Wells in particular, we see the same empty moronic reasoning that has been has been foisted on us for decades. This week, Alice Wells is talking about the need to interdict poppy cultivation because it is a key source of Taliban funding. What she does not say is that the US, through its’ exorbitant payments to Pakistan, foots 50% of the Taliban budget. It must also be pointed out that the money that Pakistan gives to the Taliban comes with strings attached which keep the Taliban an instrument of Pakistani foreign policy. Opium money, by contrast gives individual commanders in the field a little more room to negotiate and make deals on a local basis. Opium money gives them some independence from Pakistani control. Jezail.org has long advocated that the only way negotiators will ever make any headway with Taliban leadership is to deal with them as local leaders and not as a unified monolithic entity which STATE still desperately pretends they are. Making local deals through lower level commanders takes control out of the hands of uber bureaucrats and super grades and puts it into the hands of lower level officers. This is unacceptable to empire building control freaks.
At this point, the “talks” in Doha are theater through which people like Alice Wells maintain control of a fat AID budget that defies oversight or auditors. Why would a power hungry bureaucrat ever give that up? It’s one of the best gigs any ambitious bureaucrat can ever get. With three rigged national elections behind them and an epic history of corruption, does anybody doubt that the AID money is a source of massive corruption and patronage? It leaches its’ way back into the US political system as well as poisoning the government we are allegedly trying to prop up. Washington lobbyists have known about this since the days of Congressman Charllie Wilson. Herds of pundits point to Afghan corruption but Americans are now getting glimpses of how our American political system really works from the Ukraine to the Iowa Caucus. They can finally see behind the high moral hyperbole at some pretty ugly sausage making. With new statements from Alice Wells fretting over the well being of Baluchis, Uighurs and the alleged control by the Taliban of opium production in Afghanistan, it is clear that STATE is fishing for new reasons to stay on in Afghanistan. We’ve been through so many of these bogus excuses. Beginning with 911 and Bin laden, to regime change to “terrorism” in general to nation building to women’s rights to rare earth minerals, we have been lied to with new whoppers every other month and some trillion US taxpayer bucks have vanished into the desert. Now it’s opium. Now they’re concerned about opium. Never mind that historically, opium and cocaine have made their way to the US on military planes in other wars and most of the Afghan opium is, we are told, destined for Europe and Russia. Alice Wells’ concerns are indicators that STATE has no interest in getting out of Afghanistan any time soon. As they have many times before, they will claim that the job is not done until the new problem that they just came up with is fixed. It’s called moving the goal posts.
If ever there will be a path to leaving Afghanistan for America, it will not look like this. Jezail.org wishes to suggest what kinds of events and diplomatic waypoints Americans should look for to mark progress toward getting out. We should know what to expect. But Americans have no idea what they should be expecting. Below, jezail.org identifies some of the things one should expect to see in a realistic approach to leaving Afghanistan without simply handing it over to the Taliban and Pakistan, abandoning those Afghans who have strived to help us for decades. We also don’t think it’s a particularly good idea to leave a power vacuum next to the nuclear tipped Islamic Kleptocracy of Pakistan either. We just don’t think that America can fight its’ way to solving these problems. This is a job for real diplomacy and real diplomats, not the monsters of Foggy Bottom.
1. Reduce Military Budget for All Wars and Finally Cut off Pakistan Entirely
A path to “peace” in Afghanistan may not even be realistic and the reality of getting out of Afghanistan is by leaving, not talking about it. We know that. However, we have concerns because the violence and chaos we leave behind will be destabilizing to two countries that have nukes, delivery systems and are in a high state of tension. As we noted above, there is reason to believe that a viable Kabul Government could be left standing provided the US and other countries will continue to support it. The American taxpayer will not underwrite the kind of massive budget that they’ve had shoved down their throats for years. A real cost for what we would need to do would be $5-10 billion/year. It’s a ballpark figure but it would not be in the hundreds or even tens of billions we have been forced to accept. So that would be one waypoint or identifiable policy change. Drastically cap the military budget. The costs and tempo of operations would have to diminish dramatically. This figure does not include the cost of air power because it may no longer be viable given the possibility of MANPADS in the hands of the Taliban. However, by removing massive influxes of US cash to AFPAK it will likely cause belt tightening and reduce Taliban capability. So what you’d be looking for is a fixed modest budget and the final total cutting off all funds and other aid to Pakistan.
2. Remove All American Civilians and Diplomatic Staff
The US footprint on the ground would be further reduced. The need for diplomatic staff sending Christmas greetings from Kabul and saving dying puppies in the streets of Kabul would be gone. If it’s American and not in combat ready form, it’s gone. If you can’t shoot, pack and go now. This will not be Saigon. The idea that the US is in any way building or even trying to build a government in Afghanistan is a lie and beyond our competence. What we can do is what the Soviets did. Supply and feed a Kabul regime to stand on its’ own and fight its’ own existential battles. This they will do. They have no choice. It wasn’t until the Soviets themselves collapsed that the Najibullah regime came down. So getting out would definitely entail a much more serious program to stand up an effective Afghan defense force than previously existed. It has to be remembered that Afghans were once among the most formidable fighters on the planet. They defeated the Soviet army without anything but a meager arms supply. Jezail.org firmly believes that the failure to stand up an effective Afghan national Army has been a deliberate sabotaging done by our own diplomats military professionals who have investment portfolios in Pakistan and other conflicting motives.
3. Supply and Logistics
Change the Logistic Path Over to Chabahar. This is the most ambitious part of what needs to happen. There is no getting around it. The supply line through Pakistan is simply stupid and self defeating. But there is an alternative. Iran. The port of Chabahar is already being used by India to get supplies into Afghanistan to support the Kabul regime. The bad news for Washington is that some form of limited diplomatic reset will be necessary. It is long over due. Iran is not our enemy and never was. This has been a myth foisted on us all by Israeli interests and some oil concerns who spread a lot of money around Washington to perpetuate this myth. Further more, Iran has always been keen to mend a relationship with the US as we have much in common. They are at least as concerned about Sunni terrorist cells growing in the fertile environment of a Taliban run Afghanistan and have no illusions about Pakistan whose leadership is trusted by no one. It should also be pointed out that right now, Iran is apparently exploring ways to end years of hostility with the Saudis. This sea shift makes for an opportune time for a change in diplomatic direction in Washington. A key pillar of US hostility toward Iran is likely melting. However it would be wise to not be overly ambitious in any diplomatic initiative with Iran due to a long history of treachery from Washington that Iran will not soon forget. It’s not time to break out the cake and go looking for “moderates”. However, working with the already existing Indian government supply line through Chabahar, there is room for some kind of arrangement. This would also be an indication of a serious effort to leave Afghanistan for the US. It would be a move that Iran would welcome and likely facilitate as long as it were not percieved to be some kind of Imperial Trojan Horse. This is also necessary to completely cut Pakistan off and do an end run on the hold they have had on getting money from the US.
4. Decapitate STATE and Appoint Real Diplomats
More diplomacy by real diplomats, not sheep dipped CIA professionals forever in search of enemies would be necessary. In addition to opening up a dialog with Iran aimed at securing an alternative logistical path into Afghanistan, talks would also have to take place with all other countries sharing a border with Afghanistan in order to assess what their objectives are. There is little doubt that many of them would like to slice off patches of Afghanistan for themselves. This is a real concern. There are plenty of Pakistani military officials who openly advocate annexing chunks of Afghanistan for themselves. Pakistan is already issuing Pakistani ID to Afghans as well as building madrassas in eastern Afghanistan. A way to balance this appetite may well be to talk with the larger regional players. China and Russia may be able to influence border states to curb their appetites. China’s Belt and Road strategy needs regional stability to work. This initiative to align America with regional players will have to be carried out by an entirely new diplomatic team. America has relied on the same failed old hands for decades in spite of the fact that their entire careers have been marked by failure and wars. Changing diplomatic direction will mean getting rid of virtually all senior level diplomats for at least three tiers from the top down. Our senior diplomat, Zalmay Khalilzad has brought failure to every major endeavor he has touched! Yet, he seems to have becoma a Viceroy for American empire in Afghanistan and is the chief proponent of the Doha talks.
5. End the Doha Charade and Persue Localized Negotiation
The Doha talks would end in favor of a more piecemeal approach to “Taliban” insurgents. Local, commander to commander arrangements are how Afghanistan has historically worked through its problems. The famous commander from the Panshir Valley, Ahmad Shah Massoud was very effective this way. An American Army officer, Maj. Jim Gant also made impressive gains with this approach as well. It has long been known that a deal over a pot of tea can be very much more effective than a midnight raid. It can be expected that entrenched military and diplomatic leadership will oppose and actively sabotage this kind of effort as they have in the past. For a variety of reasons, lower level liaison and deal making, cuts them out of making an Afghan solution. Maj. Gant’s career was ended primarily for this reason. So the old flag officer command and super grade civil service primacy would have to be ended. This is absolutely necessary to do as super grades and flag officers have collectively demonstrated over the last 19 years an unwillingness or inability to come up with and end state for America’s longest war.
It is becoming increasingly clear to ever more Americans that our body politic has come to believe that they are rulers of an empire. The clarity of this realization contrasts with a vague vision of what an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan would look like. Any one or all of the points listed above would be indicators of a real intent to get out of this protracted imperial debacle before it follows the path of Elphinstone. If none of these things occur, than any “peace process” is, more than likely insincere.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-08--Why Both Republicans and Democrats Want Russia to Become the Enemy of Choice

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation : 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 can not be decided at the ballot box , for we can not be assured that the vote will be fairly won.
” Schiff also unleashed one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government , one Adam Schiff , head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation:
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.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-08--George Soros’s Hypocrisy About Facebook and Much Else

The investor George Soros objects that Facebook is doing what the U.S. Government allows it to do , but he doesn ’ t object to the U.S. Government ’ s allowing it .
Yet , he claims to be opposing the Republican Government of Donald Trump , while he demands that the leadership of Facebook be replaced — supposedly for violating a law that the Trump Administration maybe isn ’ t enforcing .
Is Soros really that incoherent ?
Or is there an ulterior motive here ?
He headlined an op-ed in the January 31st New York Times , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Facebook ” , and he closed there by saying , “ I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg .
They follow only one guiding principle : maximize profits irrespective of the consequences .
One way or another , they should not be left in control of Facebook.
” He cited , for blame in this , Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which allows passive online media — media that exercise no editorial control over what their users post online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not subject to lawsuits for , whatever is posted to their sites .
* Soros noted that Facebook is not censoring posts to its site in a way that will help Democratic candidates , but instead in a way that will help Republican candidates .
He apparently wants censorship , but it must be his type of censorship , not theirs .
He is clear about his support for some sort of censorship .
But is he proposing that the Government will somehow force this change from a Republican Facebook to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s stockholders will , somehow , do this — get rid of their founder and two top leaders ?
Soros doesn ’ t respect his readers enough to so much as even just touch on that basic question in his presentation — is the Government to get rid of of Zuckerberg and Sandberg , or are the stockholders supposed to do it ?
Soros is addressing his commentary only to fools who don ’ t care about what case he ’ s trying to persuade them to believe .
If his article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would have been less holier-than-thou against businesses that supposedly adhere to “ only one guiding principle : maximize profits irrespective of the consequences , ” and it would have outlined a proposal — and not just asserted “ One way or another , they should not be left in control of Facebook.
” But why shouldn ’ t they ?
He really doesn ’ t say .
He doesn ’ t cite even a single concrete example .
He presents no case , at all .
He didn ’ t object that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all , Facebook doesn ’ t actually fit into Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and Facebook is instead serving as an online publisher ( a member of the press ) and therefore is supposed to be legally responsible for what is being posted to their site — responsible for it in just the same way that the New York Times and Washington Post and NBC , CBS , ABC , Fox News , CNN , and MSNBC , are responsible for what they publish ( responsible , that is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any criminal laws ) .
Soros isn ’ t hiring lawyers to present such a case against Facebook , which would be a serious case to present , holding Facebook liable for any libels that it has published ; he is instead trying to smear the leaders of Facebook , without supplying facts , or , really , any case , at all .
He is not objecting to the Trump Administration ’ s prejudicially granting this non-enforcement to Facebook , the publisher — the Trump Administration ’ s treating them as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but just passive information-providers ; treating them as if Facebook weren ’ t selecting what to transmit and what not to transmit on their networks , to their audience .
( Facebook , and other online media such as Twitter , don ’ t even hide the fact that they exercise censorship , while they claim to be only “ passive ” media and thus protected by Section 230 .
Like I said : this case against Facebook would be serious , if it were brought , because these online platforms really do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Why did Soros object to Facebook ’ s controllers , Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg , instead of object to Donald Trump — who is granting this prejudicial treatment , to that publisher ( allowing it to be treated in accord with the Section 230 exemption ) ?
Is it because Soros is too stupid to know better , or to understand the difference ?
Soros knows enough to be expressing his viewpoint in a partisan manner , as a Democrat who spends tens of millions of dollars each election-cycle in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( For example : in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primaries , between the conservative liberal Hillary Clinton and the progressive Bernie Sanders , Soros ’ s spokesman said that “ Soros is supporting pro-Clinton super PACs because ‘ Mr .
Soros believes Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to be president.
’ ” He said this after Hillary ’ s disastrous record as Secretary of State , such as on Libya , “ We came , we saw , he died , ha ha ha !
!
” ) And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soros supports conservative Democrats ( such as that same conservative liberal Clinton ) against sometimes even more conservative Republican Party nominees , for the given federal office .
( The idea that Soros pumps about himself , that he ’ s progressive , is one big fat lie : he ’ s nothing of the sort . )
Why would he not be objecting to Trump here — the Republican who will soon be running against whomever the Democratic Party chooses to be its nominee ?
The reason is that Trump isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not the season during which the President will be chosen , but is instead the season in which each Party is to be selecting its nominee to then run against the other Parties ’ nominees .
And , since Soros is addressing , really ( and only ) , fellow Democrats , his agenda could reasonably be viewed as being to affect whom they will be voting for in the present primaries .
In other words , George Soros wants as free a hand as possible , as a Democratic Party mega-donor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party ’ s nominee will be .
He wants Facebook to be censoring his way , not their way .
Then , later , if that nominee suits his purposes , Soros will donate funds proportionately , to that Democratic Party nominee , against Donald Trump .
Perhaps right now Soros is using the opinion-page of the Democratic Party ’ s New York Times in order to warn Facebook to avoid using its censorship so as to favor and oppose ‘ the wrong ’ Democratic Party candidates .
And , maybe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates that Soros does , and so perhaps that ’ s why they published his tripe here , rather than higher-quality submissions they could have chosen instead to publish .
Google , during the 2016 election-cycle , was slanting its ‘ news ’ to favor conservative Democrats against progressive Democrats , and then to favor the Democratic Party nominees against the Republican Party ’ s nominees , whereas Facebook was slanting its ‘ news ’ to favor Republican Party nominees against Democratic Party nominees .
Twitter censors-out whatever neither Party wants the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange is being tortured awaiting his extradition to the U.S. — for a trial that will likely never happen — all of these years of his imprisonment , lately in solitary confinement moreover , and never once being tried in a court of law , for anything , at all .
Since George Soros is a Democratic Party billionaire , he is objecting against Facebook instead of against Google .
Similarly , Republican Party billionaires ( and the ‘ news ’ -media that they control ) attack Google and other pro-Democratic-Party media .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others , and take no responsibility for them ” instead of : “ President Trump is not enforcing federal laws that hold publishers liable for lies they publish.
” After all : Soros himself was — along with the U.S. Government and the Netherlands Government — one of the top three funders of a television station in Kiev Ukraine that promoted ethnic cleansing against the predominantly ethnic Russian residents in far eastern Ukraine where 90 % of the population had voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yanukovych , whom America ’ s Democratic Party President Barack Obama had just overthrown in a very bloody coup that was covered-over by ‘ popular demonstrations ’ which had actually been organized inside the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine and which had aimed at creating in Ukraine a rabidly anti-Russian government on Russia ’ s doorstep .
Obama had even been planning by no later than June 2013 to install in Crimea a U.S. naval base to replace Russia ’ s largest naval base , which was ( and remains ) located there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ against Yanukovych didn ’ t even start until 21 November 2013 , and they were organized starting on 1 March 2013 inside America ’ s Ukraine Embassy .
The organizing for them started by no later than June 2011 .
The ethnic cleansing was acknowledged by Ukrainian officials and was very effective , but Soros wanted yet more of it to be done , and he urged an additional $ 50 billion for it to be publicly financed as an ‘ investment ’ in ‘ democracy ’ .
So , Soros knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two about propaganda .
And , of course , he knows that Julian Assange is his enemy , just as much as Assange is , say , an enemy of Google ’ s Eric Schmidt , and of Cambridge Analytica ’ s Peter Thiel ( who supported Trump ) .
This is just a game that virtually all of the billionaires play , against democracy itself .
They want to control the country .
Ever since around 1980 , they have been accustomed to doing so .
* The U.S. Constitution , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of governmentally imposed censorship but allowed censorship by members of the privately owned “ press.
” Section 230 was written to exclude passive online providers from being referred to as being “ press ” or a “ publisher , ” but it was poorly written , by lobbyists for corporations in the same category as Facebook and Google , and has yet to be revised by lobbyists for their print and broadcast competitors , who might define more precisely Section 230 ’ s key phrase “ interactive computer service ” so as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being referred to by that phrase .
Right now , even the New York Times online could conceivably qualify as being not a “ publisher ” and therefore not liable as publishers have been in the past .
A corrupt government writes laws corruptly ( such as Section 230 is ) so that the laws reflect little else than the contending mega-corporate interests ; and Section 230 is an example of this ( as are most of our laws ) .
With a big enough budget for its lawyering , any mega-corporation or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws , in a corrupt country , written so as to serve its interests .
Of course , such a country is no democracy .
( But a corrupt country will have a corrupt press so that the public will think it ’ s a democracy . )
Under such circumstances , judges make the final decision in particular cases .
There already do exist some legal precedents for interpreting “ interactive computer service ” to apply only to passive ones .
However , most billionaires are probably similar to Soros in wanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to propagandize the public — shape people ’ s attitudes and beliefs — instead of to inform the public ( which entails no censorship whatsoever and is therefore overwhelmingly disfavored by billionaires and their corporations and their PACs and their lobbyists ) .
Julian Assange is an example of the way a billionaires-controlled world treats leading anti-censorship activists .
America is becoming a bastion of censorship , as one would expect of any dictatorship .
This is certainly not what the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution had intended or even expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a seemingly permanent police-state .
It ’ s what one would expect from a country that ’ s controlled by its billionaires .
The 2020 U.S. elections should be about this problem , but , of course , are not .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture
The investor George Soros objects that Facebook is doing what the U.S. Government allows it to do, but he doesn’t object to the U.S. Government’s allowing it. Yet, he claims to be opposing the Republican Government of Donald Trump, while he demands that the leadership of Facebook be replaced — supposedly for violating a law that the Trump Administration maybe isn’t enforcing. Is Soros really that incoherent? Or is there an ulterior motive here?
He headlined an op-ed in the January 31st New York Times, “Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook”, and he closed there by saying, “I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg. They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences. One way or another, they should not be left in control of Facebook.”
He cited, for blame in this, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which allows passive online media — media that exercise no editorial control over what their users post online — to be not responsible for, and not subject to lawsuits for, whatever is posted to their sites.* Soros noted that Facebook is not censoring posts to its site in a way that will help Democratic candidates, but instead in a way that will help Republican candidates. He apparently wants censorship, but it must be his type of censorship, not theirs. He is clear about his support for some sort of censorship. But is he proposing that the Government will somehow force this change from a Republican Facebook to a Democratic Facebook, or instead that Facebook’s stockholders will, somehow, do this — get rid of their founder and two top leaders? Soros doesn’t respect his readers enough to so much as even just touch on that basic question in his presentation — is the Government to get rid of of Zuckerberg and Sandberg, or are the stockholders supposed to do it? Soros is addressing his commentary only to fools who don’t care about what case he’s trying to persuade them to believe. If his article were, at all, serious, it would have been less holier-than-thou against businesses that supposedly adhere to “only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences,” and it would have outlined a proposal — and not just asserted “One way or another, they should not be left in control of Facebook.” But why shouldn’t they? He really doesn’t say. He doesn’t cite even a single concrete example. He presents no case, at all.
He didn’t object that by Facebook’s doing any censorship at all, Facebook doesn’t actually fit into Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and Facebook is instead serving as an online publisher (a member of the press) and therefore is supposed to be legally responsible for what is being posted to their site — responsible for it in just the same way that the New York Times and Washington Post and NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, are responsible for what they publish (responsible, that is, to civil suits, but not to any criminal laws). Soros isn’t hiring lawyers to present such a case against Facebook, which would be a serious case to present, holding Facebook liable for any libels that it has published; he is instead trying to smear the leaders of Facebook, without supplying facts, or, really, any case, at all.
He is not objecting to the Trump Administration’s prejudicially granting this non-enforcement to Facebook, the publisher — the Trump Administration’s treating them as if they weren’t being publishers, but just passive information-providers; treating them as if Facebook weren’t selecting what to transmit and what not to transmit on their networks, to their audience. (Facebook, and other online media such as Twitter, don’t even hide the fact that they exercise censorship, while they claim to be only “passive” media and thus protected by Section 230. Like I said: this case against Facebook would be serious, if it were brought, because these online platforms really do censor-out whatever they wish to censor-out.)
Why did Soros object to Facebook’s controllers, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, instead of object to Donald Trump — who is granting this prejudicial treatment, to that publisher (allowing it to be treated in accord with the Section 230 exemption)? Is it because Soros is too stupid to know better, or to understand the difference?
Soros knows enough to be expressing his viewpoint in a partisan manner, as a Democrat who spends tens of millions of dollars each election-cycle in order to support conservative Democrats against progressive Democrats. (For example: in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primaries, between the conservative liberal Hillary Clinton and the progressive Bernie Sanders, Soros’s spokesman said that “Soros is supporting pro-Clinton super PACs because ‘Mr. Soros believes Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to be president.’” He said this after Hillary’s disastrous record as Secretary of State, such as on Libya, “We came, we saw, he died, ha ha ha!!”) And, then, in the general election, Soros supports conservative Democrats (such as that same conservative liberal Clinton) against sometimes even more conservative Republican Party nominees, for the given federal office. (The idea that Soros pumps about himself, that he’s progressive, is one big fat lie: he’s nothing of the sort.)
Why would he not be objecting to Trump here — the Republican who will soon be running against whomever the Democratic Party chooses to be its nominee? The reason is that Trump isn’t really his target here: this is not the season during which the President will be chosen, but is instead the season in which each Party is to be selecting its nominee to then run against the other Parties’ nominees. And, since Soros is addressing, really (and only), fellow Democrats, his agenda could reasonably be viewed as being to affect whom they will be voting for in the present primaries.
In other words, George Soros wants as free a hand as possible, as a Democratic Party mega-donor, in order to determine whom the Democratic Party’s nominee will be. He wants Facebook to be censoring his way, not their way. Then, later, if that nominee suits his purposes, Soros will donate funds proportionately, to that Democratic Party nominee, against Donald Trump. Perhaps right now Soros is using the opinion-page of the Democratic Party’s New York Times in order to warn Facebook to avoid using its censorship so as to favor and oppose ‘the wrong’ Democratic Party candidates. And, maybe, that newspaper favors and opposes the same candidates that Soros does, and so perhaps that’s why they published his tripe here, rather than higher-quality submissions they could have chosen instead to publish.
Google, during the 2016 election-cycle, was slanting its ‘news’ to favor conservative Democrats against progressive Democrats, and then to favor the Democratic Party nominees against the Republican Party’s nominees, whereas Facebook was slanting its ‘news’ to favor Republican Party nominees against Democratic Party nominees. Twitter censors-out whatever neither Party wants the public to know, such as that Julian Assange is being tortured awaiting his extradition to the U.S. — for a trial that will likely never happen — all of these years of his imprisonment, lately in solitary confinement moreover, and never once being tried in a court of law, for anything, at all.
Since George Soros is a Democratic Party billionaire, he is objecting against Facebook instead of against Google. Similarly, Republican Party billionaires (and the ‘news’-media that they control) attack Google and other pro-Democratic-Party media.
Thus, Soros says “Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them” instead of: “President Trump is not enforcing federal laws that hold publishers liable for lies they publish.”
After all: Soros himself was — along with the U.S. Government and the Netherlands Government — one of the top three funders of a television station in Kiev Ukraine that promoted ethnic cleansing against the predominantly ethnic Russian residents in far eastern Ukraine where 90% of the population had voted for the democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, whom America’s Democratic Party President Barack Obama had just overthrown in a very bloody coup that was covered-over by ‘popular demonstrations’ which had actually been organized inside the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine and which had aimed at creating in Ukraine a rabidly anti-Russian government on Russia’s doorstep. Obama had even been planning by no later than June 2013 to install in Crimea a U.S. naval base to replace Russia’s largest naval base, which was (and remains) located there, in Crimea. The ‘popular demonstrations’ against Yanukovych didn’t even start until 21 November 2013, and they were organized starting on 1 March 2013 inside America’s Ukraine Embassy. The organizing for them started by no later than June 2011. The ethnic cleansing was acknowledged by Ukrainian officials and was very effective, but Soros wanted yet more of it to be done, and he urged an additional $50 billion for it to be publicly financed as an ‘investment’ in ‘democracy’. So, Soros knows, and understands, a thing or two about propaganda. And, of course, he knows that Julian Assange is his enemy, just as much as Assange is, say, an enemy of Google’s Eric Schmidt, and of Cambridge Analytica’s Peter Thiel (who supported Trump).
This is just a game that virtually all of the billionaires play, against democracy itself. They want to control the country. Ever since around 1980, they have been accustomed to doing so.
* The U.S. Constitution, in its First Amendment, prohibited any type of governmentally imposed censorship but allowed censorship by members of the privately owned “press.” Section 230 was written to exclude passive online providers from being referred to as being “press” or a “publisher,” but it was poorly written, by lobbyists for corporations in the same category as Facebook and Google, and has yet to be revised by lobbyists for their print and broadcast competitors, who might define more precisely Section 230’s key phrase “interactive computer service” so as to state explicitly that only passive ones are being referred to by that phrase. Right now, even the New York Times online could conceivably qualify as being not a “publisher” and therefore not liable as publishers have been in the past. A corrupt government writes laws corruptly (such as Section 230 is) so that the laws reflect little else than the contending mega-corporate interests; and Section 230 is an example of this (as are most of our laws). With a big enough budget for its lawyering, any mega-corporation or association of large corporations can get the laws, in a corrupt country, written so as to serve its interests. Of course, such a country is no democracy. (But a corrupt country will have a corrupt press so that the public will think it’s a democracy.) Under such circumstances, judges make the final decision in particular cases. There already do exist some legal precedents for interpreting “interactive computer service” to apply only to passive ones. However, most billionaires are probably similar to Soros in wanting the internet to continue being used so as to propagandize the public — shape people’s attitudes and beliefs — instead of to inform the public (which entails no censorship whatsoever and is therefore overwhelmingly disfavored by billionaires and their corporations and their PACs and their lobbyists). Julian Assange is an example of the way a billionaires-controlled world treats leading anti-censorship activists. America is becoming a bastion of censorship, as one would expect of any dictatorship. This is certainly not what the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution had intended or even expected. After 9/11, it has become a seemingly permanent police-state. It’s what one would expect from a country that’s controlled by its billionaires. The 2020 U.S. elections should be about this problem, but, of course, are not.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-10--Was this Trump’s best week ever?

Was this Trump’s best week ever?

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by William Stroock , author of military fiction In thirty years of following politics , this writer has never seen a president have the kind of week President Trump had .
From impeachment to the economy to the Democrat Party primary , each day brought a new Trump victory .
The president is in the midst of an impressive winning streak .
Last Monday , the parties held the Iowa Caucuses .
The already complicated caucus process was complicated further by the Democrat ’ s use of an app to report vote totals .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not a single precinct had reported their caucus results .
Democrat National Committee chair , Tom Perez , called for a recanvassing of the caucuses .
The Democrat Party of Iowa refused .
Not until Wednesday were Iowa Democrats able to report only partial results and the final tally didn ’ t come in until Friday .
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and South Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg finished in a virtual tie with Sanders winning the popular vote but Buttigieg took away the most delegates .
Buttigieg ’ s surge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s expense .
Biden fell to a distant fourth with 15.78 percent of the vote .
Republicans mocked the Dems wanting to nationalize whole industries but not even being able to count votes in Iowa .
President Trump took 97 percent of the Republican caucus vote .
Sander ’ s Iowa win has panicked the centrist Democrat establishment .
James Carville , the architect of Bill Clinton ’ s two presidential wins in the 90 ’ s , said that Sander ’ s rise was turning the Democrat Party into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats might go the way of the British Labour party , which was wiped out in January ’ s parliamentary elections .
Sanders favors ‘ Medicare for all ’ and confiscatory tax rates .
‘ Wake up and make sure that we talk about things that are relevant to people , ’ Carville said .
Hillary Clinton joined Carville , saying that Sanders had ‘ promised the moon ’ .
The Sanders camp dismissed Carville as an out of touch 75-year-old .
Of course , they loath Hillary .
Carville ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory , looks strong .
But , the energy in the Democrat party lies with young firebrands like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the hard left .
The problem for the likes of Carville and Clinton is they don ’ t have a viable alternative to Sanders and his ideas .
Biden stammers on stage , appears out of his depth , and looks like a man long past his prime .
The Democrat centrists are fading .
On Tuesday , President Trump delivered his third State of the Union Address .
Trump touted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created several sentimental made-for-TV moments .
Trump further exasperated the rift in the Democrat Party by inviting Venezuela ’ s opposition leader Juan Guaido to the State of the Union and declaring he was the rightful president .
Bernie Sanders and his followers support socialist president Nicholas Maduro .
It was a great night for the president , one made greater by Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s antics on the dais .
Throughout the speech , she grimaced behind the president , gesticulated toward the Democrat caucus , and looked generally miserable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union , Pelosi ripped up the official copy of the address before the cameras .
The GOP has already used Pelosi ’ s stunt in campaign commercials .
On Wednesday , the United States Senate acquitted President Trump of both articles of impeachment submitted by the House .
Utah Senator Mitt Romney was the lone Republican to vote with the Democrats .
Trump and the rest of the GOP mocked and taunted the failed 2012 Republican presidential nominee without mercy .
Immediately after the acquittal , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Judges as part of his effort to remake the judiciary .
These will soon be approved by the Senate .
On Thursday , Trump held a small victory party in the East Wing of the White House .
Before the cameras , Trump thanked his legal team and supporters .
He spent most of the rest of the rally excoriating Pelosi and House impeachment managers Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) and Jerold Nadler ( D-NY ) and the Deep State .
Democrats pounced on the president ’ s failure to be magnanimous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
On Friday night , the Democrat presidential candidates debated in New Hampshire , which will hold the nation ’ s first primary this week .
Joe Biden went on the offensive against Buttigieg and later released a devastating ad comparing his record at the Federal Level with Buttigieg ’ s record as mayor of a city of a hundred thousand people .
The rest of the debate was dominated by liberal boutique issues like slavery reparations .
New Hampshire ’ s population is 1.53 % African American .
That morning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report for January .
The economy exceeded expectations and added 225,000 jobs last month .
Also on Friday , Trump fired Colonel Alexander Vindemen ( his twin brother as well who also worked in the National Security Council ) and Ambassador Gordon Sondland , both of whom testified against him at the impeachment hearings .
Trump ended last week with a 49 % approval rating in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls .
This week Trump submits his Federal budget and begins his annual battle with the Democrats over spending priorities .
The Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump win again ?

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by William Stroock, author of military fiction
In thirty years of following politics, this writer has never seen a president have the kind of week President Trump had. From impeachment to the economy to the Democrat Party primary, each day brought a new Trump victory. The president is in the midst of an impressive winning streak.
Last Monday, the parties held the Iowa Caucuses. The already complicated caucus process was complicated further by the Democrat’s use of an app to report vote totals. The app badly malfunctioned and, by midnight, not a single precinct had reported their caucus results. Democrat National Committee chair, Tom Perez, called for a recanvassing of the caucuses. The Democrat Party of Iowa refused. Not until Wednesday were Iowa Democrats able to report only partial results and the final tally didn’t come in until Friday. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg finished in a virtual tie with Sanders winning the popular vote but Buttigieg took away the most delegates. Buttigieg’s surge has come at former Vice President Joe Biden’s expense. Biden fell to a distant fourth with 15.78 percent of the vote. Republicans mocked the Dems wanting to nationalize whole industries but not even being able to count votes in Iowa. President Trump took 97 percent of the Republican caucus vote.
Sander’s Iowa win has panicked the centrist Democrat establishment. James Carville, the architect of Bill Clinton’s two presidential wins in the 90’s, said that Sander’s rise was turning the Democrat Party into an ‘ideological cult’ and warned that the Democrats might go the way of the British Labour party, which was wiped out in January’s parliamentary elections. Sanders favors ‘Medicare for all’ and confiscatory tax rates. ‘Wake up and make sure that we talk about things that are relevant to people,’ Carville said. Hillary Clinton joined Carville, saying that Sanders had ‘promised the moon’. The Sanders camp dismissed Carville as an out of touch 75-year-old. Of course, they loath Hillary. Carville’s preferred candidate, Joe Biden, in theory, looks strong. But, the energy in the Democrat party lies with young firebrands like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the hard left. The problem for the likes of Carville and Clinton is they don’t have a viable alternative to Sanders and his ideas. Biden stammers on stage, appears out of his depth, and looks like a man long past his prime. The Democrat centrists are fading.
On Tuesday, President Trump delivered his third State of the Union Address. Trump touted his administration’s economic record and created several sentimental made-for-TV moments. Trump further exasperated the rift in the Democrat Party by inviting Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaido to the State of the Union and declaring he was the rightful president. Bernie Sanders and his followers support socialist president Nicholas Maduro. It was a great night for the president, one made greater by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s antics on the dais. Throughout the speech, she grimaced behind the president, gesticulated toward the Democrat caucus, and looked generally miserable. When President Trump finished the State of the Union, Pelosi ripped up the official copy of the address before the cameras. The GOP has already used Pelosi’s stunt in campaign commercials.
On Wednesday, the United States Senate acquitted President Trump of both articles of impeachment submitted by the House. Utah Senator Mitt Romney was the lone Republican to vote with the Democrats. Trump and the rest of the GOP mocked and taunted the failed 2012 Republican presidential nominee without mercy. Immediately after the acquittal, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-KY) filed cloture on four more Federal Judges as part of his effort to remake the judiciary. These will soon be approved by the Senate.
On Thursday, Trump held a small victory party in the East Wing of the White House. Before the cameras, Trump thanked his legal team and supporters. He spent most of the rest of the rally excoriating Pelosi and House impeachment managers Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jerold Nadler (D-NY) and the Deep State. Democrats pounced on the president’s failure to be magnanimous in victory, but the base loved it.
On Friday night, the Democrat presidential candidates debated in New Hampshire, which will hold the nation’s first primary this week. Joe Biden went on the offensive against Buttigieg and later released a devastating ad comparing his record at the Federal Level with Buttigieg’s record as mayor of a city of a hundred thousand people. The rest of the debate was dominated by liberal boutique issues like slavery reparations. New Hampshire’s population is 1.53% African American.
That morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its report for January. The economy exceeded expectations and added 225,000 jobs last month. Also on Friday, Trump fired Colonel Alexander Vindemen (his twin brother as well who also worked in the National Security Council) and Ambassador Gordon Sondland, both of whom testified against him at the impeachment hearings.
Trump ended last week with a 49% approval rating in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls. This week Trump submits his Federal budget and begins his annual battle with the Democrats over spending priorities. The Democrat will hold their New Hampshire. Will Trump win again?
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report