theduran--2020-01-26--‘Racist’ Trump Supporters Should Lose Their Vote, Says NBC. Guess Who Decides They’re ‘Racist’?

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation : Once again , the mainstream media is pushing the repugnant race card , suggesting that Trump supporters are a bunch of knuckle-dragging xenophobes whose only reason for wanting a wall on the Mexican border is because they suffer an aversion to people with different skin color than them .
What exactly do White Americans – who opened the floodgates to immigration in 1965 – need to do these days to prove they are not natural born racists ?
Cancel their monthly subscription to Town and Country ?
Stop walking their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , four-legged vehicles of “ racial segregation , ” or stop attending their evening yoga class , the unsuspecting breeding grounds for white supremacists ?
Somehow I suspect that even if White people took to burning effigies of Ku Klux Klan members on their manicured front lawns that would not even put a stop to the ugly rumors .
Let ’ s just face it , the only thing that will finally stop the slanderous slurs is if all White Americans publicly denounce their support of the biggest race-hater of them all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuse the itinerant Liberal Inquisition will be only too happy to do it for them .
Just ask Noah Berlatsky , occasional columnist for MSNBC , whose latest piece was crowned with the zinger of a headline , ‘ Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution .
Can they be stopped ?
’ Nice leading question there , but the premise that precedes it , that Trump voters are “ motivated by racism , ” is just one more election-season deceit .
Berlatsky ’ s article opens with the conclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist campaign for president , ” and that his popular rallying slogan “ Make America Great Again ” is actually code that can be translated into “ America was greater when white people ’ s power was more sweeping and more secure.
” Yet nowhere in any of Trump ’ s numerous campaign utterances or even Tweets has he ever singled out America ’ s White population as the intended sole beneficiary of his plans to remake the U.S. economy .
In fact , just the opposite .
As Trump has made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shine to America ’ s industrial Rustbelt , threatening companies with penalties and public scorn if they relocate their production operations overseas , the unemployment rate among Blacks now stands at 5.9 % , down from 7.5 % at the start of his presidency .
At the same time , the employment rate among Hispanics is at historic highs .
At this point , the Democrats will invariably mention Trump ’ s promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border , a promise that arguably won the real estate developer the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats argue , is an unrepentant racist because he admitted to an unsavory truth that even Hispanics living in America agree with : “ When Mexico sends its people , they ’ re not sending their best…They ’ re sending people that have lots of problems , and they ’ re bringing those problems with us .
They ’ re bringing drugs .
They ’ re bringing crime .
They ’ re rapists .
And some , I assume , are good people.
” Trump was not arguing , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was arguing that of the many who do make it across the border a disproportionate number do fit the description .
At this point , it needs to be asked why the Democrats deign to show so much care and compassion for those illegals breaching America ’ s border on a daily basis , at the very same time Democratic strongholds , like California and New York , are already bursting at the seams with tent cities and grinding poverty .
Suffice it to consider a comment by a British tourist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gem of the increasingly tarnished , Democratic-controlled Golden State : “ I can ’ t understand how anyone can live in a place where their everyday trip to get groceries or go to work includes a multitude of beggars asking for spare change or a meal.
” Considering that the Democrats can ’ t even take care of their own burgeoning problems in their primary constituencies , what is the real motivation behind their proposals to open the U.S. border and abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) ?
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who screamed ‘ not in my backyard !
’ when Trump threatened to send all apprehended illegals to the so-called ‘ sanctuary cities ’ .
Nancy Pelosi skirted the periphery of racism when she called the idea “ disrespectful.
” Would their sham benevolence have anything to do with securing more Democratic voters , or guaranteeing that the Republican Party eventually goes the way of the dinosaurs ?
Was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo motivated by pure compassion when he signed legislation granting driver ’ s licenses to illegal immigrants , who may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under New York ’ s notoriously loose voting laws ?
Now Democrats are demanding the elimination Voter ID rules , declaring them racist against minorities .
This is one of the ways Berlatsky proposes to end so-called “ racist voting ” now purportedly contaminating U.S. politics .
It ’ s no secret that Hispanic Americans traditionally vote Democratic , and if that tendency were to change tomorrow you can bet that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be camped out daily at the Mexican border , demanding the necessary funds to finish the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrat ’ s groundless assertion that Trump supporters are kneejerk racists disintegrates when it is remembered that up to 10 million former Obama supporters – many of them White – switched allegiances to the Trump camp in the 2016 presidential election .
Are we really expected to believe that all of those Americans suddenly became hardcore racists with the arrival of the evil ‘ orange man ’ and his pledge to build a wall ?
That sounds highly unlikely .
The far more logical explanation for this massive change in political sentiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedy America ’ s dangerously porous borders , thereby enhancing the security of all Americans , regardless of skin color , was a welcomed idea across the board .
Nevertheless , the real danger is that the Democrats , entranced by the cult of political correctness and an out-of-control cancel culture , will attempt by some extreme measures to identify and ban so-called ‘ racist Trump supporters ’ who are just regular Americans looking for a leader who will provide them with a well-guarded country that protects the rights of all its citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump voters from the ballet box may eventually become as easy as censoring right-leaning Twitter users .
Clearly , the Democrats learned absolutely nothing from the mistake of branding Trump supports “ deplorables ” – to quote Hillary Clinton – and have only worsened their present position by calling these same voters , many of them former Obama supporters , “ racist.
” Such a gross simplification and misunderstanding of the current American political realities goes far at explaining why the Democrats stand very little chance of beating Trump at the ballot box @

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 Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:
Once again, the mainstream media is pushing the repugnant race card, suggesting that Trump supporters are a bunch of knuckle-dragging xenophobes whose only reason for wanting a wall on the Mexican border is because they suffer an aversion to people with different skin color than them.
What exactly do White Americans – who opened the floodgates to immigration in 1965 – need to do these days to prove they are not natural born racists? Cancel their monthly subscription to Town and Country? Stop walking their dogs, which are, of course, four-legged vehicles of “racial segregation,” or stop attending their evening yoga class, the unsuspecting breeding grounds for white supremacists? Somehow I suspect that even if White people took to burning effigies of Ku Klux Klan members on their manicured front lawns that would not even put a stop to the ugly rumors. Let’s just face it, the only thing that will finally stop the slanderous slurs is if all White Americans publicly denounce their support of the biggest race-hater of them all, Donald J. Trump. And should they refuse the itinerant Liberal Inquisition will be only too happy to do it for them.
Just ask Noah Berlatsky, occasional columnist for MSNBC, whose latest piece was crowned with the zinger of a headline, ‘Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?’ Nice leading question there, but the premise that precedes it, that Trump voters are “motivated by racism,” is just one more election-season deceit.
Berlatsky’s article opens with the conclusion that Donald Trump “ran an openly racist campaign for president,” and that his popular rallying slogan “Make America Great Again” is actually code that can be translated into “America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure.” Yet nowhere in any of Trump’s numerous campaign utterances or even Tweets has he ever singled out America’s White population as the intended sole beneficiary of his plans to remake the U.S. economy. In fact, just the opposite. As Trump has made it his goal to return some of the shine to America’s industrial Rustbelt, threatening companies with penalties and public scorn if they relocate their production operations overseas, the unemployment rate among Blacks now stands at 5.9%, down from 7.5% at the start of his presidency. At the same time, the employment rate among Hispanics is at historic highs.
At this point, the Democrats will invariably mention Trump’s promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, a promise that arguably won the real estate developer the White House in 2016. Yet Trump, the Democrats argue, is an unrepentant racist because he admitted to an unsavory truth that even Hispanics living in America agree with: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Trump was not arguing, of course, that all Mexicans are rapists or criminals. He was arguing that of the many who do make it across the border a disproportionate number do fit the description.
At this point, it needs to be asked why the Democrats deign to show so much care and compassion for those illegals breaching America’s border on a daily basis, at the very same time Democratic strongholds, like California and New York, are already bursting at the seams with tent cities and grinding poverty. Suffice it to consider a comment by a British tourist to San Francisco, the one-time crown gem of the increasingly tarnished, Democratic-controlled Golden State: “I can’t understand how anyone can live in a place where their everyday trip to get groceries or go to work includes a multitude of beggars asking for spare change or a meal.”
Considering that the Democrats can’t even take care of their own burgeoning problems in their primary constituencies, what is the real motivation behind their proposals to open the U.S. border and abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? After all, these are the very same people who screamed ‘not in my backyard!’ when Trump threatened to send all apprehended illegals to the so-called ‘sanctuary cities’. Nancy Pelosi skirted the periphery of racism when she called the idea “disrespectful.”
Would their sham benevolence have anything to do with securing more Democratic voters, or guaranteeing that the Republican Party eventually goes the way of the dinosaurs? Was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo motivated by pure compassion when he signed legislation granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, who may now cast a ‘legal’ vote under New York’s notoriously loose voting laws? Now Democrats are demanding the elimination Voter ID rules, declaring them racist against minorities. This is one of the ways Berlatsky proposes to end so-called “racist voting” now purportedly contaminating U.S. politics.
It’s no secret that Hispanic Americans traditionally vote Democratic, and if that tendency were to change tomorrow you can bet that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would be camped out daily at the Mexican border, demanding the necessary funds to finish the project.
In the final analysis, the Democrat’s groundless assertion that Trump supporters are kneejerk racists disintegrates when it is remembered that up to 10 million former Obama supporters – many of them White – switched allegiances to the Trump camp in the 2016 presidential election. Are we really expected to believe that all of those Americans suddenly became hardcore racists with the arrival of the evil ‘orange man’ and his pledge to build a wall? That sounds highly unlikely. The far more logical explanation for this massive change in political sentiment is that Trump’s plan to remedy America’s dangerously porous borders, thereby enhancing the security of all Americans, regardless of skin color, was a welcomed idea across the board.
Nevertheless, the real danger is that the Democrats, entranced by the cult of political correctness and an out-of-control cancel culture, will attempt by some extreme measures to identify and ban so-called ‘racist Trump supporters’ who are just regular Americans looking for a leader who will provide them with a well-guarded country that protects the rights of all its citizens regardless of skin color. Banning undesirable Trump voters from the ballet box may eventually become as easy as censoring right-leaning Twitter users.
Clearly, the Democrats learned absolutely nothing from the mistake of branding Trump supports “deplorables” – to quote Hillary Clinton – and have only worsened their present position by calling these same voters, many of them former Obama supporters, “racist.” Such a gross simplification and misunderstanding of the current American political realities goes far at explaining why the Democrats stand very little chance of beating Trump at the ballot box.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-26--The Troubling Decline of International Law

This is a repost from : The Troubling Decline of International Law 24 Jan , 2020 , by Craig Murray While it is true that rogue states – most notably the USA – have always posed a threat to the rule of international law , I see no serious room to dispute that the development of the corpus of international law , and of the institutions to implement it , was one of the great achievements of the twentieth century , and did a huge amount to reduce global conflict .
The International Court of Justice , the Law of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Justice , the World Trade Organisation , these are just some of the institutions which have played an extremely positive role , helping resolve hundreds of disputes during their existence and , still more importantly , helping establish rules that prevented thousands more disputes from arising .
Regional Organisations , dozens of them including the EU , the African Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation , have also flourished .
The judgement of the ICJ in the 160 cases it has heard has almost always been respected by the parties to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dispute is radical , inflammatory and had already led to fighting and deaths , such as the settlement of the Nigeria/Cameroon border .
The ICJ has been a massive success story .
The foundation of the International Criminal Court in 2002 was the high water mark in establishing the rule of law as the guiding principle of international affairs .
As with all the major worldwide institutions of international law , the UK had played a leading role in the establishment of the ICC .
I was in the FCO at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence that eventually the USA would join up , just as they had with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea after decades of havering .
In fact , the ICC has been a major disappointment , of which more later .
I refer to 2002 as the high water mark for the rule of international law , because subsequently the tide has turned decisively against it .
When Blair and Bush invaded Iraq , not only without the sanction of the UN Security Council but in the certain knowledge the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Blair ’ s case against the unanimous opinion of the FCO ’ s entire cadre of Legal Advisers who stated that the war was illegal , they not only precipitated a crisis that has resulted in millions of deaths , they dealt a killing blow to the entire fabric of international law .
The results are now becoming every day more visible .
We have just survived for now , thanks to Iran ’ s remarkable sense and restraint , a dangerous crisis in the Middle East following the illegal assassination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a diplomatic mission at the time .
The use on a massive scale of execution by drone – including execution of UK and US nationals – by the British and American governments , often without the permission of the government in whose territory the execution takes place , is an appalling breach of international law for which there appears to be no effective remedy .
The FCO Legal Advisers refused to advise that the killing of Soleimani was legal in international law .
However the UK government no longer cares if something is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The government line was originally that there was an “ arguable case ” that the assassination was legal , then after objections from legal advisers the line changed to “ it is not for the UK to determine whether the drone strike is legal ” .
The United Kingdom used to be a pillar , arguably the most important pillar , of international law .
Thanks to a series of neo-con politicians , including Blair , Straw , Cameron , May and Johnson , the UK scarcely makes a pretence any more abut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It simply ignores the instruction of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice to decolonise the Chagos Islands .
It refuses to implement the binding international arbitration on debt owed to Iran .
It mocks the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention .
It refuses to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women into asylum detention centres .
I could go on .
A direct consequence of this is sharply diminished UK influence in the world , and in particular for the first time in 71 years it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court of Justice .
As the UK has effectively spurned the authority of the ICJ , this is scarcely surprising .
It was the UK ’ s reputation as an upholder of international law that moderated outrage at the UN at the UK ’ s anachronistic permanent membership of the UN Security Council .
That international respect no longer exists , and the British Government are deluded if they think that the UK ’ s privileged UN status will last forever , especially as it can no longer be represented as a proxy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself is of course suffering a sustained threat to its authority .
It is simply ignored on the dreadful Saudi led disaster in Yemen .
By refusing the Iranian foreign minister a visa to attend a Security Council meeting on Soleimani , the USA struck at the very purpose of the UN .
If the institution is to be held the hostage of its geographical host , what is its purpose ?
Ultimately , to regain relevance the UN would have both democratically to reform and to relocate , perhaps to South Africa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the near future .
As for the International Criminal Court , that has been a severe disappointment which in many ways symbolises the collapse of international law .
Its failure to prosecute Bush and Blair for the war on Iraq set its direction from the beginning .
Waging aggressive war is in itself a war crime and was indelibly established as such by the Nuremburg Tribunal .
That it was not specifically mentioned in the Rome Statute was a flimsy pretext from judges not willing to take on power .
The same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US crimes in Afghanistan and appear to be in the same process over war crimes in Gaza , where astonishingly there has been no backing from states for the ICC against Netanyahu ’ s threat to institute sanctions against ICC staff if investigations continue .
I used to defend the ICC robustly over accusations that it was simply a tool of neo-con policy .
I now find it very hard to do so .
The UK is not the only country ignoring international law .
Spain ’ s repudiation of the European Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released to take his seat in the European Parliament is a huge blow to the prestige and authority of that organisation .
Spain ’ s vicious persecution of Catalonia is itself the most comprehensive challenge that “ western values ” have faced for decades in the European heartland , by a large measure worse than anything which Orban has done .
Spain completely ignores its Council of Europe obligations .
The structure of international law is looking very shoogly indeed .
It does matter , a very great deal .
The world is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result .

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.
This is a repost from:
The Troubling Decline of International Law
24 Jan, 2020, by Craig Murray
While it is true that rogue states – most notably the USA – have always posed a threat to the rule of international law, I see no serious room to dispute that the development of the corpus of international law, and of the institutions to implement it, was one of the great achievements of the twentieth century, and did a huge amount to reduce global conflict.
The International Court of Justice, the Law of the Sea Tribunal, the European Court of Justice, the World Trade Organisation, these are just some of the institutions which have played an extremely positive role, helping resolve hundreds of disputes during their existence and, still more importantly, helping establish rules that prevented thousands more disputes from arising. Regional Organisations, dozens of them including the EU, the African Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, have also flourished.
The judgement of the ICJ in the 160 cases it has heard has almost always been respected by the parties to the case. That has applied even when the dispute is radical, inflammatory and had already led to fighting and deaths, such as the settlement of the Nigeria/Cameroon border. The ICJ has been a massive success story.
The foundation of the International Criminal Court in 2002 was the high water mark in establishing the rule of law as the guiding principle of international affairs. As with all the major worldwide institutions of international law, the UK had played a leading role in the establishment of the ICC. I was in the FCO at the time, and I remember the quiet confidence that eventually the USA would join up, just as they had with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea after decades of havering. In fact, the ICC has been a major disappointment, of which more later. I refer to 2002 as the high water mark for the rule of international law, because subsequently the tide has turned decisively against it.
When Blair and Bush invaded Iraq, not only without the sanction of the UN Security Council but in the certain knowledge the Security Council was against it, and in Blair’s case against the unanimous opinion of the FCO’s entire cadre of Legal Advisers who stated that the war was illegal, they not only precipitated a crisis that has resulted in millions of deaths, they dealt a killing blow to the entire fabric of international law.
The results are now becoming every day more visible. We have just survived for now, thanks to Iran’s remarkable sense and restraint, a dangerous crisis in the Middle East following the illegal assassination of General Soleimani, who was travelling on a diplomatic mission at the time. The use on a massive scale of execution by drone – including execution of UK and US nationals – by the British and American governments, often without the permission of the government in whose territory the execution takes place, is an appalling breach of international law for which there appears to be no effective remedy.
The FCO Legal Advisers refused to advise that the killing of Soleimani was legal in international law. However the UK government no longer cares if something is legal in international law or not. The government line was originally that there was an “arguable case” that the assassination was legal, then after objections from legal advisers the line changed to “it is not for the UK to determine whether the drone strike is legal”.
The United Kingdom used to be a pillar, arguably the most important pillar, of international law. Thanks to a series of neo-con politicians, including Blair, Straw, Cameron, May and Johnson, the UK scarcely makes a pretence any more abut giving a fig about international law. It simply ignores the instruction of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice to decolonise the Chagos Islands. It refuses to implement the binding international arbitration on debt owed to Iran. It mocks the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. It refuses to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women into asylum detention centres. I could go on. A direct consequence of this is sharply diminished UK influence in the world, and in particular for the first time in 71 years it does not have a seat on the International Court of Justice. As the UK has effectively spurned the authority of the ICJ, this is scarcely surprising.
It was the UK’s reputation as an upholder of international law that moderated outrage at the UN at the UK’s anachronistic permanent membership of the UN Security Council. That international respect no longer exists, and the British Government are deluded if they think that the UK’s privileged UN status will last forever, especially as it can no longer be represented as a proxy for EU foreign policy.
The UN itself is of course suffering a sustained threat to its authority. It is simply ignored on the dreadful Saudi led disaster in Yemen. By refusing the Iranian foreign minister a visa to attend a Security Council meeting on Soleimani, the USA struck at the very purpose of the UN. If the institution is to be held the hostage of its geographical host, what is its purpose? Ultimately, to regain relevance the UN would have both democratically to reform and to relocate, perhaps to South Africa. I do not see that happening in the near future.
As for the International Criminal Court, that has been a severe disappointment which in many ways symbolises the collapse of international law. Its failure to prosecute Bush and Blair for the war on Iraq set its direction from the beginning. Waging aggressive war is in itself a war crime and was indelibly established as such by the Nuremburg Tribunal. That it was not specifically mentioned in the Rome Statute was a flimsy pretext from judges not willing to take on power. The same judges have bottled out of investigation of US crimes in Afghanistan and appear to be in the same process over war crimes in Gaza, where astonishingly there has been no backing from states for the ICC against Netanyahu’s threat to institute sanctions against ICC staff if investigations continue. I used to defend the ICC robustly over accusations that it was simply a tool of neo-con policy. I now find it very hard to do so.
The UK is not the only country ignoring international law. Spain’s repudiation of the European Court of Justice decision that Junqueras must be released to take his seat in the European Parliament is a huge blow to the prestige and authority of that organisation. Spain’s vicious persecution of Catalonia is itself the most comprehensive challenge that “western values” have faced for decades in the European heartland, by a large measure worse than anything which Orban has done. Spain completely ignores its Council of Europe obligations.
The structure of international law is looking very shoogly indeed. It does matter, a very great deal. The world is becoming a significantly more dangerous place as a result.


theduran--2020-01-26--Joe Biden Is as Corrupt as They Come

Joe Biden Is as Corrupt as They Come

On 25 October 2019 , Lee Fang at The Intercept headlined “ JOE BIDEN ’ S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY , WEAPONS MAKERS , FINANCE ” , and he reported that among the billionaires who were planning a PAC to support Joe Biden ’ s campaign was Bernard Schwartz .
On that same day , I headlined “ Biden Backer — Former Lockheed Leader — Convinces Biden to Sell-Out ” , and I reported that the “ Former Lockheed leader ” who was leading this effort was Schwartz , himself , formerly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company that sells more to the U.S. Government than does any other — it ’ s by far the largest federal contractor .
In other words : if Biden does become the U.S. President , then he will be heavily in debt to the world ’ s biggest weapons-maker , a corporation whose profits are totally dependent upon selling to the U.S. Government and to its allied governments such as Saudi Arabia , UAE , and Israel .
This is exactly the opposite of what America ’ s Founding Fathers urged subsequent generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very wise .
Joe Biden is not .
Only an uninformed person would expect such a President to be seeking Mid-East peace .
Biden would instead be seeking the standard neoconservative ’ s objective , “ Peace Through Strength ” — in other words , fear-mongering the public against ‘ America ’ s enemies ’ , and ‘ love ’ -mongering for ‘ America ’ s allies ’ ( such as Israel , Saudi Arabia , etc. )
.
That ’ s the opposite of what , for example , George Washington urged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s relying upon people such as Bernard Schwartz to place him into the White House is the worst possible form of selling himself out — selling-out to America ’ s “ Military Industrial Complex ” or “ MIC.
” But the reason why such people as Schwartz want Biden to become the President is that , consistently , Biden has been precisely such a war-monger or “ neoconservative ” as they have always been wanting — such as when Biden helped to lead Democrats in the U.S. Senate who backed the 2003 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a ‘ mistake ’ by him as he now claims — it was the way Joe Biden has always been .
And , now , we know that the former Chairman of Lockheed Martin thinks that Biden still remains that way .
On 23 October 2019 , Luke Darby at GQ magazine , headlined “ How Biden Helped Strip Bankruptcy Protection From Millions Just Before a Recession ” .
Joe Biden was the leading Democrat in Congress backing and pushing for the George W. Bush and Republican-backed ‘ bankruptcy reform ’ bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 18 Senate Democrats for the ‘ bankruptcy reform ’ bill , while 25 Democrats were against it .
All 55 Republicans were for it .
In the U.S. House , the Independent Bernie Sanders voted against .
All 229 Republicans were for .
73 Democrats there were for , 125 were against .
A lot of Biden supporters say that Biden is “ a real Democrat ” and that Sanders is no Democrat at all ( since he ’ s an Independent who merely caucuses with the Senate ’ s Democrats ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did , and Biden voted like all Republicans did .
Back when the ‘ bankruptcy reform ’ bill first was first being drafted in 1999 , the Washington Post headlined “ Creditors ’ Money Talks Louder in Bankruptcy Debate ” and reported that , Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr .
( D-Del . )
, a key Judiciary Committee member who hails from the home base of credit card issuers MBNA Corp. and First USA , opposes the liberal faction ’ s bill .
“ I ’ m not the senator from MBNA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter in 1996 .
Even after Hunter became a federal lobbyist in 2001 , he stayed on at MBNA as a consultant at a fee of $ 100,000 per year , meaning he was pulling in a six-figure salary at the same time his father was pushing for the industry ’ s top priorities .
Biden ’ s interests were so aligned with MBNA ’ s that in 1999 he was forced to defend himself by declaring , “ I am not the senator from MBNA.
” Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his record and simply trust his promises because he ’ s a “ regular Joe ” like they are .
He promises that he won ’ t keep promoting invasions of countries that never even so much as threatened the United States , and that he won ’ t keep supporting corporations which were his biggest financial backers .
So , he says , voters should just trust him to do the right thing .
According to Open Secrets , headlining in 2008 , ” The Money Behind Biden ” , “ His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ card giant MBNA Corp. , ” the credit-card issuer , “ which , despite being acquired by Bank of America a few years ago , remains atop the list of Biden ’ s major contributors.
” That company knew how to repay a debt , and they had a big debt , to him , to repay .
In fact , while the ‘ bankruptcy reform ’ bill was being drawn up , during the 2000 political campaign-cycle , MBNA wasn ’ t merely Biden ’ s # 1 donor , but its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign as did his # 2 donor during that cycle , and he delivered the goods so well that they owed him now even more .
And , like Lee Fang said , it ’ s not only credit-card companies , but , “ JOE BIDEN ’ S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY , WEAPONS MAKERS , FINANCE ” .
And he will be very grateful to all of them if he wins the Democratic nomination .
It ’ ll be as usual in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another corrupt politician , each of whom is trusted by the voters in his own Party .
Truth , to them , makes no difference ; but , in a land where truth makes no difference , does “ democracy ” even mean anything , other than an empty slogan ?
On 27 November 2007 , C-Span showed a Joe Biden Town Hall .
A brief clip from that was posted online as “ User Clip : Joe Biden 2007 , Money in Politics ” , and here ’ s my transcription from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealing ( about Biden ’ s values ) part of it : ( 0:40- ) People who accept money [ from lobbyists ] aren ’ t bad people .
But it ’ s human nature .
You go out and bundle $ 250,000 for me , all legal , and then you call me after I am elected , and say “ I would like to come and talk about something.
” You didn ’ t buy me , but it ’ s human nature , you helped me .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come on in.
” … What it does mean , it means that the front of the line is always filled by people whose pockets are filled , people who are special interests .
Most of you are no part of any special interest .
He went on there to promise that if elected President he will change that , by campaigning constantly ( AFTER winning the Presidency — not BEFORE ) against the corrupt system which had made him President .
He thinks that his audience will believe in the tooth-fairy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tooth-fairy exists and that he ’ s it .
The deceptive irrelevant line from all of the corrupt candidates is the same : “ I ’ m the most electable one !
” But corrupt people constantly lie , and nobody is actually certain whom the “ most electable ” one is ; but that ’ s really not even the question here .
What the Democratic primaries are actually about isn ’ t about beating Trump .
He ’ s not even a candidate in the Democratic primaries .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but instead about whom the person will be that ’ s going to be running against Trump in the general election .
The primaries won ’ t be selecting the next President .
They will only narrow the field of contenders , to two .
Which two ?
That ’ s the question here .
Of course , lots of Democrats think that any Democrat will be better than Trump .
And lots of Republicans believe that Trump is better than any Democrat .
There is a sucker born every second ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , and their Party thus ends up having lousy individuals carrying its banner , such as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were in 2016 .
Both Parties deserved to lose , but that ( a Hobson ’ s choice ) isn ’ t a democracy .
It ’ s corrupt politicians , and it ’ s stupid voters who refuse to recognize the corruption of , and in , ‘ our own side ’ — not only the other ’ s .
It ’ s not democracy , because it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democracy is rejection of the corrupt system , and of corrupt candidates .
It ’ s demanding better than that .
It ’ s not only the donors — the mega-donors ( the people who really are seeking special personal favors and NOT good government ) — who are corrupt , and who always do “ buy ” politicians , such as Joe Biden .
It ’ s also stupid voters , who make things bad for everyone except the corrupt and the corrupters .
No actual democracy consists of the corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a fact which all of the resolutely stupid voters ignore because they ’ re so attached to their chosen tooth-fairies .
On January 22nd , the Washington Post headlined a 6,000-word article about the day in politics “ The Daily 202 : Joe Biden talks Ukraine , but not impeachment , in Iowa ” , and reported that “ The centerpiece of Biden ’ s pitch is that he can bridge the partisan divides and work with Republican senators to get big things done.
” Yes , that ’ s actually true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ‘ Democratic ’ President who can be ‘ bipartisan ’ with congressional Republicans , and sign into law legislation that until his occupancy of the White House had been only decades-long Republican and billionaires ’ dreams , but under a Biden Presidency would now become his proud “ bipartisan achievements.
” He could turn out to be the most effective Republican ( but of the Democrat-in-name-only , hyper-hypocritical , type of ) President ever — a truly bipartisan-fascist President .
It would be a fitting culmination to his career .
Investigative historian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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
Bernard Schwartz, a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin (which is by far the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America’s allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden’s top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th, “Biden allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter”, and reported that, “Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president’s campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just that.”
It’s not for nothing that throughout Biden’s long Senate career, he has voted in favor of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate. If you are a weapons-maker whose sole market is the U.S. Government and its allies, then you need Senators and House members who will vote in favor of buying the weapons that you are manufacturing. And those same Senators and Congressmen also need to hire, as the U.S. Secretary of State, people such as Hillary Clinton, who likewise was a “super-hawk,” and who negotiated in favor of invasions, by the U.S. and its allies, against whatever nations are instead the targets, which are to be either taken over as U.S. allies, or else invaded with those weapons.
It’s not enough to have as many markets as possible; there also need to be nations against which your products can be used. This serves the ‘patriotic’ function of expanding the empire, not only for your own firm, but also for the U.S. extractive firms such as ExxonMobil, which need this military protection, in order to be able to apply the kind of pressure that will ‘persuade’ foreign leaders to choose them, instead of to choose a foreign competitor, to do the extractions.
Joe Biden has done surprisingly well in the polling thus far, despite poor performance in the debates, and despite having supported every foreign invasion that now the American public think shouldn’t have been done. He is the candidate with the most “experience” — like Hillary Clinton was — and, for the majority of voters (especially in today’s Democratic Party), this means the largest numbers of the worst possible decisions — neoconservative (i.e., U.S.-imperialist) decisions. And, so, he leads the Democratic field today, much like Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
Furthermore, as that CNN article notes: “Nearly 70% of the individual contributions that Sanders has raised so far came from donors giving $200 or less; Warren has a similar profile, at about 64%. Biden’s share of individual contributions raised from small dollar donors during the course of the campaign stands at roughly 35%.”
And both Sanders and Warren have raised lots more money from small donors than Biden has raised thus far from large ones. This scares people such as Bernard Schwartz. They don’t want their investments to fail.
And moreover: “The former vice president has relied on maxed-out contributors for 38% of the money he’s raised so far in his presidential bid, according to an analysis of financial disclosure reports, giving the candidate fewer opportunities than many of his rivals to return to loyal donors again for cash as the Democratic primary campaign heats up.” And, so, “the conversations intensified in the wake of a cash crunch for the former vice president’s campaign. He reported last week having less than $9 million in the bank, significantly less than his leading rivals.”
And this is the reason why Biden needs to open up the spigots, now, so as to become enabled to collect the more-secret types of money, which aren’t so subject to disclosure and limit rules, and which, increasingly, constitute Joe Biden’s path to the White House.
The CNN article, as propaganda for the Democratic National Committee or the people who fund the Democratic Party, opens in its first sentence by presenting this contest as being already between the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee versus the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee, even though the reality is that it’s between contestants for the Democratic nomination: “A coalition of top Democratic strategists and donors are intensifying conversations about setting up an outside group to bolster Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy, people familiar with the matter tell CNN, aiming to create a super PAC designed to fight back against a barrage of well-funded attacks from President Donald Trump’s campaign.”
So: they open by falsely characterizing what the Democratic Party’s primaries are actually all about (between Trump and Biden, instead of between the Democratic-Party candidates so as to determine whom that Party’s nominee will be). This is subtly, but fundamentally, deceiving the Party’s voters, regarding the rules of the electoral game in which they will be participating. This is how they had won the nomination for Hillary Clinton in 2016: by making suckers out of a large-enough percentage of the Party’s voters.
Biden is doing remarkably well, considering his appalling record in public office. Here are summaries of the latest polls:
——
https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/24/buttigieg-jumps-to-second-place-in-iowa/
Buttigieg Jumps to Second Place In Iowa
October 24, 2019 at 8:06 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 261 Comments
A new Iowa State University/Civiqs poll finds Elizabeth Warren leading the Democratic presidential field with 28%, followed by Pete Buttigieg at 20%, Bernie Sanders at 18% and Joe Biden at 12%.
The poll of likely caucus-goers also asked voters to list the candidate they do not want to win the nomination. Biden and Sanders topped this list with Tulsi Gabbard third.
——
https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/24/new-poll-shows-warren-expanding-her-lead/
New Poll Shows Warren Expanding Her Lead
October 24, 2019 at 6:06 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 147 Comments
A new Quinnipiac poll [October 17-21] finds Elizabeth Warren leading the Democratic presidential race with 28%, followed by Joe Biden at 21%, Bernie Sanders at 15%, Pete Buttigieg at 10%, Kamala Harris at 5% and Amy Klobuchar at 3%. No other candidate tops one percent.
——
https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/23/biden-still-way-ahead-in-south-carolina/
Biden Still Way Ahead In South Carolina
October 23, 2019 at 12:34 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 64 Comments
A new Monmouth poll in South Carolina finds Joe Biden way ahead in the Democratic presidential race with 33%, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 16%, Bernie Sanders at 12%, Kamala Harris at 6%, Tom Steyer at 4%, Pete Buttigieg at 3%, Cory Booker at 2%, Amy Klobuchar at 2% and Andrew Yang at 2%.
——
https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/23/biden-widens-national-lead/
Biden Widens National Lead
October 23, 2019 at 6:50 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 276 Comments
A new CNN poll [October 17-20] finds Joe Biden’s lead in the race for the Democratic nomination for president has rebounded, and now stands at its widest margin since April.
Biden has the support of 34%, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 19%, Bernie Sanders at 16%, Pete Buttigieg at 6%, Kamala Harris at 6%, Amy Klobuchar at 3% and Beto O’Rourke at 3%. [Almost all of Biden’s advantage there comes from his having a crushing 42% from Blacks, whereas all 6 of the next-supported candidates together are favored only by 40% of Blacks — it’s no contest. And it’s exceedingly irrational: “No public policy, in the last half century has been more detrimental to African Americans than mass incarceration, and no law has aided mass incarceration more than Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill which was drafted and supported by Joe Biden.” And, “Blacks make up nearly 40 percent of the inmates in the nation’s prisons, although they are only 12 percent of the U.S. population.” Biden and Clinton led in the ‘criminalization’ of Blacks’ ‘crimes’. So: are most Blacks simply gluttons for punishment? Or is there a different explanation?]
—————
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.
On 25 October 2019, Lee Fang at The Intercept headlined “JOE BIDEN’S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE”, and he reported that among the billionaires who were planning a PAC to support Joe Biden’s campaign was Bernard Schwartz. On that same day, I headlined “Biden Backer — Former Lockheed Leader — Convinces Biden to Sell-Out”, and I reported that the “Former Lockheed leader” who was leading this effort was Schwartz, himself, formerly a Chairman of Lockheed Martin, the company that sells more to the U.S. Government than does any other — it’s by far the largest federal contractor.
In other words: if Biden does become the U.S. President, then he will be heavily in debt to the world’s biggest weapons-maker, a corporation whose profits are totally dependent upon selling to the U.S. Government and to its allied governments such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel. This is exactly the opposite of what America’s Founding Fathers urged subsequent generations of Americans to do. They were very wise. Joe Biden is not.
Only an uninformed person would expect such a President to be seeking Mid-East peace. Biden would instead be seeking the standard neoconservative’s objective, “Peace Through Strength” — in other words, fear-mongering the public against ‘America’s enemies’, and ‘love’-mongering for ‘America’s allies’ (such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.). That’s the opposite of what, for example, George Washington urged the American people to do.
Biden’s relying upon people such as Bernard Schwartz to place him into the White House is the worst possible form of selling himself out — selling-out to America’s “Military Industrial Complex” or “MIC.”
But the reason why such people as Schwartz want Biden to become the President is that, consistently, Biden has been precisely such a war-monger or “neoconservative” as they have always been wanting — such as when Biden helped to lead Democrats in the U.S. Senate who backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That wasn’t a ‘mistake’ by him as he now claims — it was the way Joe Biden has always been. And, now, we know that the former Chairman of Lockheed Martin thinks that Biden still remains that way.
On 23 October 2019, Luke Darby at GQ magazine, headlined “How Biden Helped Strip Bankruptcy Protection From Millions Just Before a Recession”. Joe Biden was the leading Democrat in Congress backing and pushing for the George W. Bush and Republican-backed ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill which passed, in the Senate, with 18 Senate Democrats for the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill, while 25 Democrats were against it. All 55 Republicans were for it.
In the U.S. House, the Independent Bernie Sanders voted against. All 229 Republicans were for. 73 Democrats there were for, 125 were against.
A lot of Biden supporters say that Biden is “a real Democrat” and that Sanders is no Democrat at all (since he’s an Independent who merely caucuses with the Senate’s Democrats). But Sanders voted like most Democrats did, and Biden voted like all Republicans did.
Back when the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill first was first being drafted in 1999, the Washington Post headlined “Creditors’ Money Talks Louder in Bankruptcy Debate” and reported that,
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a key Judiciary Committee member who hails from the home base of credit card issuers MBNA Corp. and First USA, opposes the liberal faction’s bill. “I’m not the senator from MBNA,” he said.
Luke Darby’s article noted that,
MBNA hired Joe Biden’s son Hunter in 1996. Even after Hunter became a federal lobbyist in 2001, he stayed on at MBNA as a consultant at a fee of $100,000 per year, meaning he was pulling in a six-figure salary at the same time his father was pushing for the industry’s top priorities. Biden’s interests were so aligned with MBNA’s that in 1999 he was forced to defend himself by declaring, “I am not the senator from MBNA.”
Joe Biden has always expected voters to ignore his record and simply trust his promises because he’s a “regular Joe” like they are. He promises that he won’t keep promoting invasions of countries that never even so much as threatened the United States, and that he won’t keep supporting corporations which were his biggest financial backers. So, he says, voters should just trust him to do the right thing. According to Open Secrets, headlining in 2008, ”The Money Behind Biden”, “His largest contributor over time has been credit card giant MBNA Corp.,” the credit-card issuer, “which, despite being acquired by Bank of America a few years ago, remains atop the list of Biden’s major contributors.” That company knew how to repay a debt, and they had a big debt, to him, to repay. In fact, while the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill was being drawn up, during the 2000 political campaign-cycle, MBNA wasn’t merely Biden’s #1 donor, but its employees donated over twice as much to his campaign as did his #2 donor during that cycle, and he delivered the goods so well that they owed him now even more.
And, like Lee Fang said, it’s not only credit-card companies, but, “JOE BIDEN’S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE”.
And he will be very grateful to all of them if he wins the Democratic nomination. It’ll be as usual in American politics, one corrupt politician up against another corrupt politician, each of whom is trusted by the voters in his own Party. Truth, to them, makes no difference; but, in a land where truth makes no difference, does “democracy” even mean anything, other than an empty slogan?
On 27 November 2007, C-Span showed a Joe Biden Town Hall. A brief clip from that was posted online as “User Clip: Joe Biden 2007, Money in Politics”, and here’s my transcription from what I consider to be the most revealing (about Biden’s values) part of it:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4817532/user-clip-joe-biden-2007-money-politics&start=3322
“User Clip: Joe Biden 2007, Money in Politics”
27 November 2007, Iowa Town Hall
(0:40-) People who accept money [from lobbyists] aren’t bad people. But it’s human nature. You go out and bundle $250,000 for me, all legal, and then you call me after I am elected, and say “I would like to come and talk about something.” You didn’t buy me, but it’s human nature, you helped me. I’m going to say, “Sure, come on in.” … What it does mean, it means that the front of the line is always filled by people whose pockets are filled, people who are special interests. Most of you are no part of any special interest.
He went on there to promise that if elected President he will change that, by campaigning constantly (AFTER winning the Presidency — not BEFORE) against the corrupt system which had made him President. He thinks that his audience will believe in the tooth-fairy, if only he tells them that the tooth-fairy exists and that he’s it. The deceptive irrelevant line from all of the corrupt candidates is the same: “I’m the most electable one!” But corrupt people constantly lie, and nobody is actually certain whom the “most electable” one is; but that’s really not even the question here. What the Democratic primaries are actually about isn’t about beating Trump. He’s not even a candidate in the Democratic primaries. They’re not about ‘beating Donald Trump’, but instead about whom the person will be that’s going to be running against Trump in the general election. The primaries won’t be selecting the next President. They will only narrow the field of contenders, to two. Which two? That’s the question here.
Of course, lots of Democrats think that any Democrat will be better than Trump. And lots of Republicans believe that Trump is better than any Democrat. There is a sucker born every second; and, so, people believe this way, and their Party thus ends up having lousy individuals carrying its banner, such as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were in 2016. Both Parties deserved to lose, but that (a Hobson’s choice) isn’t a democracy. It’s corrupt politicians, and it’s stupid voters who refuse to recognize the corruption of, and in, ‘our own side’ — not only the other’s. It’s not democracy, because it’s thoroughly corrupt, on all sides. Democracy is rejection of the corrupt system, and of corrupt candidates. It’s demanding better than that. It’s not only the donors — the mega-donors (the people who really are seeking special personal favors and NOT good government) — who are corrupt, and who always do “buy” politicians, such as Joe Biden. It’s also stupid voters, who make things bad for everyone except the corrupt and the corrupters. No actual democracy consists of the corrupt and the corrupters. That’s just a fact which all of the resolutely stupid voters ignore because they’re so attached to their chosen tooth-fairies.
On January 22nd, the Washington Post headlined a 6,000-word article about the day in politics “The Daily 202: Joe Biden talks Ukraine, but not impeachment, in Iowa”, and reported that “The centerpiece of Biden’s pitch is that he can bridge the partisan divides and work with Republican senators to get big things done.” Yes, that’s actually true: Biden is clearly aiming to become the ‘Democratic’ President who can be ‘bipartisan’ with congressional Republicans, and sign into law legislation that until his occupancy of the White House had been only decades-long Republican and billionaires’ dreams, but under a Biden Presidency would now become his proud “bipartisan achievements.” He could turn out to be the most effective Republican (but of the Democrat-in-name-only, hyper-hypocritical, type of) President ever — a truly bipartisan-fascist President. It would be a fitting culmination to his career.
—————
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--2020-01-26--Debunking claim Bill Clinton turned over 90,000 docs during his impeachment (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris debunk the Democrat impeachment narrative that former US President Bill Clinton cooperated fully with his impeachment trial by voluntarily , and happily , turning over 90,000 documents to Congress during the impeachment proceedings .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
For weeks , Democrats have been demanding to see new witnesses and documents for the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump .
Mostly they have emphasized witnesses .
But on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial , the Democratic House managers seemed to turn up the call for documents , claiming that President Bill Clinton provided tens of thousands of pages of documents for his impeachment trial in 1999 .
“ In the Clinton case , the president provided all of the documents — more than 90,000 pages of them — before the trial took place , ” the managers said in a statement released Tuesday morning .
“ [ Majority Leader Mitch ] McConnell ’ s resolution rejects that basic necessity.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton trial , witnesses were deposed and the president provided more than 90,000 documents , ” she said Tuesday .
“ All of the documents in the Clinton trial were turned over prior to the trial , ” said lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff when arguments before the Senate began .
“ All 90,000 pages of them , so they could be used in the House ’ s case.
” So a question : Where did the figure of 90,000 pages , or documents , come from ?
Did Clinton helpfully cooperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remove him from office 20 years ago ?
It turns out Schiff , Pelosi , and their colleagues were not telling the whole story .
They got the 90,000 figure , apparently , from Clinton ’ s rebuttal to the Starr report — the report independent counsel Kenneth Starr turned over to Congress on Sept. 9 , 1998 , after seven months of investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair .
In that rebuttal , given to Congress on Sept. 11 , Clinton ’ s lawyers wrote : “ During the past four and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … produced more than 90,000 pages of documents and other items ” to investigators .
But not to Congress .
The Clinton situation was entirely different from the one Schiff and his fellow Democrats face today .
Starr was an independent counsel with full law enforcement powers , and his office issued many grand jury subpoenas pushing Clinton , who often resisted fiercely , to turn over the 90,000 documents over the course of four and a half years , covering the Whitewater , Travelgate , Filegate , and Lewinsky investigations .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think he voluntarily gave us anything , ” said Sol Weisenberg , a former Starr prosecutor , in a conversation Tuesday .
With Trump , the House has been involved in a different process .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose not to seek the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Trump-Ukraine matter .
( The old independent counsel law under which Starr was appointed expired years ago ; a Trump-Ukraine special counsel investigation might have operated along the lines of the Robert Mueller Trump-Russia investigation . )
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not involve a grand jury or engage in the type of fighting for documents that Starr did .
The House did issue a subpoena for documents directed at White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on Oct. 4 , 2019 .
The subpoena seemed almost certain to stir conflict , calling “ for documents and communications that are highly delicate and would typically be subject in almost any White House to claims of executive privilege , ” according to the New York Times .
The White House declined to provide the documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not formally exist because the House had not at that point taken a formal vote beginning the process .
And when the White House did not turn over documents , the House did … nothing .
“ Did the House take any steps to remedy that ?
” asked Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin on the Senate floor Tuesday .
“ Did they try to dispute that ?
Did they go to court ?
Did they try to resolve that problem ?
No .
Because as we know , all they wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on.
” Now , Democrats say they really , really want documents .
After all , they claim , Bill Clinton turned over those 90,000 documents for his impeachment trial .
How could Trump do less ?
It sounds persuasive — until one finds out what really happened way back in 1998 .

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.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris debunk the Democrat impeachment narrative that former US President Bill Clinton cooperated fully with his impeachment trial by voluntarily, and happily, turning over 90,000 documents to Congress during the impeachment proceedings.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via The Washington Examiner…
For weeks, Democrats have been demanding to see new witnesses and documents for the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. Mostly they have emphasized witnesses. But on Tuesday, the first full day of the trial, the Democratic House managers seemed to turn up the call for documents, claiming that President Bill Clinton provided tens of thousands of pages of documents for his impeachment trial in 1999.
“In the Clinton case, the president provided all of the documents — more than 90,000 pages of them — before the trial took place,” the managers said in a statement released Tuesday morning. “[Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell’s resolution rejects that basic necessity.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed up the managers. “For the Clinton trial, witnesses were deposed and the president provided more than 90,000 documents,” she said Tuesday.
“All of the documents in the Clinton trial were turned over prior to the trial,” said lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff when arguments before the Senate began. “All 90,000 pages of them, so they could be used in the House’s case.”
So a question: Where did the figure of 90,000 pages, or documents, come from? Did Clinton helpfully cooperate with the House Republicans who were trying to remove him from office 20 years ago?
It turns out Schiff, Pelosi, and their colleagues were not telling the whole story. They got the 90,000 figure, apparently, from Clinton’s rebuttal to the Starr report — the report independent counsel Kenneth Starr turned over to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998, after seven months of investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair. In that rebuttal, given to Congress on Sept. 11, Clinton’s lawyers wrote: “During the past four and a half years, the President has … produced more than 90,000 pages of documents and other items” to investigators.
But not to Congress. The Clinton situation was entirely different from the one Schiff and his fellow Democrats face today. Starr was an independent counsel with full law enforcement powers, and his office issued many grand jury subpoenas pushing Clinton, who often resisted fiercely, to turn over the 90,000 documents over the course of four and a half years, covering the Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and Lewinsky investigations.
“If memory serves me correctly, I don’t think he voluntarily gave us anything,” said Sol Weisenberg, a former Starr prosecutor, in a conversation Tuesday.
With Trump, the House has been involved in a different process. Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose not to seek the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Trump-Ukraine matter. (The old independent counsel law under which Starr was appointed expired years ago; a Trump-Ukraine special counsel investigation might have operated along the lines of the Robert Mueller Trump-Russia investigation.) Instead, House Democrats conducted a hurried investigation that did not involve a grand jury or engage in the type of fighting for documents that Starr did.
The House did issue a subpoena for documents directed at White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on Oct. 4, 2019. The subpoena seemed almost certain to stir conflict, calling “for documents and communications that are highly delicate and would typically be subject in almost any White House to claims of executive privilege,” according to the New York Times.
The White House declined to provide the documents, arguing that the House impeachment process did not formally exist because the House had not at that point taken a formal vote beginning the process.
And when the White House did not turn over documents, the House did … nothing.
“Did the House take any steps to remedy that?” asked Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin on the Senate floor Tuesday. “Did they try to dispute that? Did they go to court? Did they try to resolve that problem? No. Because as we know, all they wanted to do was issue a subpoena and move on.”
Now, Democrats say they really, really want documents. After all, they claim, Bill Clinton turned over those 90,000 documents for his impeachment trial. How could Trump do less? It sounds persuasive — until one finds out what really happened way back in 1998.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-27--Joe Biden in 2020 Copies Hillary Clinton in 2016

The 2016 Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucuses were held on 1 February 2016 and produced 49.84 % for Hillary Clinton and 49.59 % for Bernie Sanders .
On 12 January 2016 , Politico headlined “ Sanders bests Clinton in new early state polls ” and reported that “ The intensifying rivalry between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders spiked a few degrees on Tuesday with two new polls showing the Vermont senator catching fire in not only his regional stomping ground of New Hampshire but also in Iowa , where Clinton enjoyed a double-digit lead as late as mid-December.
” The 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held on 3 February 2020 .
On 26 January 2020 , Political Wire headlined “ Tight Race in Iowa ” and reported that “ A new CBS News poll in Iowa shows Bernie Sanders is leading the Democratic presidential race with 26 % , followed by Joe Biden at 25 % , Pete Buttigieg at 22 % , Elizabeth Warren at 15 % and Amy Klobuchar at 7 % .
” That CBS News poll in Iowa showed also that whereas only 33 % of the likely voters thought that Sanders would beat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought that Biden would beat Trump if the nominee .
Biden also scored far higher than Sanders on “ Prepared to be Commander in Chief ” : 84 % on that , compared to Sanders ’ s 68 % .
Also on other factors , the findings were remarkably similar for Biden as compared to what the polls at around this same time had been showing for Clinton .
Also , the pre-primary polls in 2016 were showing almost identical demographics for Clinton ’ s voters as the 2020 pre-primary polls are showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an overwhelming majority of Blacks supporting Clinton then and Biden now , but also on almost all other demographic factors .
And , likewise , Sanders ’ s voters in 2020 seem to be the same demographics as Sanders voters in 2016 were .
Clinton , of course , received the Democratic Party nomination and was widely expected to beat Trump but she lost to him ( though she won California by 4,269,978 in the popular vote , and so beat Trump by 2,864,974 in the nationwide popular vote , while she lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so she would have been California ’ s President if she had won , but the rest of the nation wouldn ’ t have been happy ) .
Among the top reasons why Democrats in primaries and caucuses voted for Clinton was that they thought she would have a higher likelihood of beating the Republican nominee than Sanders did .
However , by the time when Election Day rolled around , the passion that Republicans felt for their nominee , Trump , was much stronger than was the passion that Democrats felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic primaries , polls were showing that the Democrats who were voting for Sanders to become their Party ’ s nominee were far more passionate in their support of him than was the case regarding the Democrats who were voting for Clinton to become the Democratic nominee .
And nobody questions that Trump was the passion-candidate in the Republican Party ’ s primaries and caucuses .
On 1 May 2017 , McClatchy newspapers headlined “ Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost ” and reported that , A select group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new data about last year ’ s presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost .
Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they ’ re right .
Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton ’ s defeat : Her base didn ’ t turn out , Donald Trump ’ s did and the difference was too much to overcome .
But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , in fact , effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost , according to Matt Canter , a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group .
In his group ’ s analysis , about 70 percent of Clinton ’ s failure to reach Obama ’ s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters .
… Although Clinton has blamed her loss on Putin , and on Sanders — and perhaps if Biden wins the nomination he will likewise blame Putin and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the passion factor is actually much stronger an influence on whom the winner of an electoral contest will be than losing candidates wish to admit or publicly acknowledge ; and it could turn out to be the case in 2020 , just the same as it did in 2016 .
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
The 2016 Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucuses were held on 1 February 2016 and produced 49.84% for Hillary Clinton and 49.59% for Bernie Sanders.
On 12 January 2016, Politico headlined “Sanders bests Clinton in new early state polls” and reported that “The intensifying rivalry between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders spiked a few degrees on Tuesday with two new polls showing the Vermont senator catching fire in not only his regional stomping ground of New Hampshire but also in Iowa, where Clinton enjoyed a double-digit lead as late as mid-December.”
The 2020 Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucuses are to be held on 3 February 2020. On 26 January 2020, Political Wire headlined “Tight Race in Iowa” and reported that “A new CBS News poll in Iowa shows Bernie Sanders is leading the Democratic presidential race with 26%, followed by Joe Biden at 25%, Pete Buttigieg at 22%, Elizabeth Warren at 15% and Amy Klobuchar at 7%.”
That CBS News poll in Iowa showed also that whereas only 33% of the likely voters thought that Sanders would beat Trump if the nominee, 45% thought that Biden would beat Trump if the nominee. Biden also scored far higher than Sanders on “Prepared to be Commander in Chief”: 84% on that, compared to Sanders’s 68%. Also on other factors, the findings were remarkably similar for Biden as compared to what the polls at around this same time had been showing for Clinton. Also, the pre-primary polls in 2016 were showing almost identical demographics for Clinton’s voters as the 2020 pre-primary polls are showing now for Biden voters — such as an overwhelming majority of Blacks supporting Clinton then and Biden now, but also on almost all other demographic factors. And, likewise, Sanders’s voters in 2020 seem to be the same demographics as Sanders voters in 2016 were.
Clinton, of course, received the Democratic Party nomination and was widely expected to beat Trump but she lost to him (though she won California by 4,269,978 in the popular vote, and so beat Trump by 2,864,974 in the nationwide popular vote, while she lost all other states by 1,405,002 votes, and so she would have been California’s President if she had won, but the rest of the nation wouldn’t have been happy).
Among the top reasons why Democrats in primaries and caucuses voted for Clinton was that they thought she would have a higher likelihood of beating the Republican nominee than Sanders did. However, by the time when Election Day rolled around, the passion that Republicans felt for their nominee, Trump, was much stronger than was the passion that Democrats felt for their nominee, Clinton. During the Democratic primaries, polls were showing that the Democrats who were voting for Sanders to become their Party’s nominee were far more passionate in their support of him than was the case regarding the Democrats who were voting for Clinton to become the Democratic nominee. And nobody questions that Trump was the passion-candidate in the Republican Party’s primaries and caucuses.
On 1 May 2017, McClatchy newspapers headlined “Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost” and reported that,
A select group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year’s presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they’re right.
Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton’s defeat: Her base didn’t turn out, Donald Trump’s did and the difference was too much to overcome.
But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later.
Those Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters. …
Although Clinton has blamed her loss on Putin, and on Sanders — and perhaps if Biden wins the nomination he will likewise blame Putin and Sanders if he subsequently loses to Trump — the passion factor is actually much stronger an influence on whom the winner of an electoral contest will be than losing candidates wish to admit or publicly acknowledge; and it could turn out to be the case in 2020, just the same as it did in 2016.
—————
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--2020-01-27--Boris’ Brexit is almost here. Scotland, Wales & Ireland brace for big changes (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the arrival of Boris Johnson ’ s Brexit at month ’ s end and how the United Kingdom , Scotland , Northern Ireland , Wales and the Republic of Ireland will all need to adjust to a new reality in their geopolitical positions .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Authored by Guillaume Durocher via The Unz Review : After a great deal of delay and kvetching , Brexit is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean all that much in the grand scheme of things .
While leftists may hysterically accuse Boris Johnson of being “ racist ” – seemingly only for speaking humorously of burqas as resembling letter-boxes – the Prime Minister and his multicultural team can be counted on to pursue a policy of Globalism in One Country .
The main significance is this : getting liberal/globalist elites to respect democratic outcomes even if they don ’ t like them .
This is an important precedent .
In truth , Britain ’ s position within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of free movement of people and of the Eurozone was arguably optimal .
This granted London considerable influence over a major economic bloc while staying out of the zanier schemes .
The only real downside of EU membership was in preventing any legal way of keeping Eastern European Gypsies out of the country .
Despite “ Remoaner ” hysteria , leaving the EU is not the end of the world either .
I ’ m sure Britain will be able to get on fine outside the EU and indeed both the British and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along .
Perhaps Britain will reinvent itself as a global tax haven .
After all , Europe ’ s share of global GDP has been rapidly declining over the past decades .
Britain ’ s departure is a major economic blow to the EU .
Brexit will leave a €7.5-billion hole in the EU budget , Britain being the biggest contributors besides the Germans .
Britain was one of the EU ’ s few dynamic major economies ( along with Germany and , to a more limited extent , France ) and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The bloc will be reduced to 450 million inhabitants and will become a distant third in terms of GDP behind China and the United States of America .
On the positive side , Brexit may make the EU a more cohesive Union .
Without Britain , the bloc is already taking a hard protectionist turn .
Indeed , the Latins and Eastern Europeans are all protectionist , while Germany has a discovered a newfound interest in ‘ industrial policy , ’ leaving the free-trading Dutch and Nordics a small minority .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empty talk , the EU is a genuinely powerful trade bloc , with real clout on market regulation ( witness those annoying GDPR privacy popups ) , antitrust , anti-dumping , and trade negotiations .
Still , I would not expect miracles .
Despite lack of British participation , the Continentals have yet to make anything coherent of the Eurozone .
During the Cold War , Western Europeans were subject to much more significant geopolitical pressure – economic , military , and cultural dependence on the United States , a massive Soviet military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mideast manifest in the Oil Shocks – without this leading to any serious attempt by the Europeans to recover their sovereignty and power .
The postwar European democracies were satisfied with the Pursuit of Purchasing Power .
The threats of today really are less immediate or downright minor in comparison .
Brexit happening seems a good time to recall a farsighted Frenchman who predicted that none of this would work : Charles de Gaulle .
President de Gaulle twice vetoed Britain ’ s candidacy to join the then-European Economic Community ( EEC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
De Gaulle had long thought that the so-called “ Europeanists ” were not sincere and/or coherent in their claim to be building a strong and independent federal Europe .
He said in a May 1962 press conference : France ’ s proposals [ on Europe ] have raised two objections , which incidentally are perfectly contradictory even though they are presented by the same people .
.
.
.
These critics tell us : “ You want to create a Europe of nations , while we want to create supranational Europe.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confound these powerfully established entities that are the nations and the States .
And then , these same critics simultaneously tell us : “ England has submitted its candidacy to join the [ European ] Common Market .
So long as they are not in , we won ’ t be able to do anything political.
” And yet , everyone knows that England , as a great State and a nation true to itself , will never consent to being dissolved in some utopian construct .
The British comedy show Yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humorously making the same point .
Six months later , De Gaulle vetoed Britain ’ s entry of the EEC , citing British ties to the United States , economic relations with the Commonwealth , and general differences with those he called “ the Continentals.
” In January 1963 , De Gaulle said that in the event of British membership : We can expect that the cohesion of all the members , which would be very numerous and very diverse , would not last long and that , in the end , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American dependence and leadership , which would soon absorb the European Community .
This eventuality may appear perfectly legitimate in the eyes of some , but it is not at all what France wished to do and has done , which is a genuinely European construct .
In short , De Gaulle accused the British of being a kind of American Trojan Horse .
.
.
and who could blame him ?
In 1967 , De Gaulle again vetoed British membership citing basically the same concerns .
Britain could not join the EEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Continentals forever gave up on creating a Europe which is European.
” Historically , the latter view prevailed .
As a rule , the early “ European federalists ” were never interested in creating a strong and independent Europe .
Like Jean Monnet and Walter Hallstein , they were just Atlanticist networkers , whose personal prosperity depended on these deracinated and foreign circles , rather than on Europe ’ s native power .
I can not tell you how revolted I was when I tried to read the memoirs of both Monnet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hallstein ( who claimed , in 1970s , when the EEC was barely an entity at all , that the Europeans were “ halfway ” to federation and just needed one last push to get there ) .
Anyway , Britain ’ s departure from the European Union opens the way for the Continentals to try , a bit more earnestly , to create a truly sovereign and independent “ European Europe.
” This is not an absurd ambition .
London was in some ways Europe ’ s only top-tier “ global city.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ really are secondary nodes .
There ’ s a charmingly provincial quality to European politics which must be preserved .
While in the Anglosphere Jews and Asians have massively displaced White Gentiles among their cultural and economic elites , the same is not really true in Continental Europe , certainly outside of France .
Time will tell .

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.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the arrival of Boris Johnson’s Brexit at month’s end and how the United Kingdom, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland will all need to adjust to a new reality in their geopolitical positions.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Authored by Guillaume Durocher via The Unz Review:
After a great deal of delay and kvetching, Brexit is finally happening. This doesn’t mean all that much in the grand scheme of things. While leftists may hysterically accuse Boris Johnson of being “racist” – seemingly only for speaking humorously of burqas as resembling letter-boxes – the Prime Minister and his multicultural team can be counted on to pursue a policy of Globalism in One Country. The main significance is this: getting liberal/globalist elites to respect democratic outcomes even if they don’t like them. This is an important precedent.
In truth, Britain’s position within the EU but outside both the Schengen Area of free movement of people and of the Eurozone was arguably optimal. This granted London considerable influence over a major economic bloc while staying out of the zanier schemes. The only real downside of EU membership was in preventing any legal way of keeping Eastern European Gypsies out of the country.
Despite “Remoaner” hysteria, leaving the EU is not the end of the world either. I’m sure Britain will be able to get on fine outside the EU and indeed both the British and the Continentals have strong incentives to get along. Perhaps Britain will reinvent itself as a global tax haven. After all, Europe’s share of global GDP has been rapidly declining over the past decades.
Britain’s departure is a major economic blow to the EU. Brexit will leave a €7.5-billion hole in the EU budget, Britain being the biggest contributors besides the Germans. Britain was one of the EU’s few dynamic major economies (along with Germany and, to a more limited extent, France) and the only one with a semi-serious tech sector. The bloc will be reduced to 450 million inhabitants and will become a distant third in terms of GDP behind China and the United States of America.
On the positive side, Brexit may make the EU a more cohesive Union. Without Britain, the bloc is already taking a hard protectionist turn. Indeed, the Latins and Eastern Europeans are all protectionist, while Germany has a discovered a newfound interest in ‘industrial policy,’ leaving the free-trading Dutch and Nordics a small minority. While European foreign and defense policies are mostly empty talk, the EU is a genuinely powerful trade bloc, with real clout on market regulation (witness those annoying GDPR privacy popups), antitrust, anti-dumping, and trade negotiations.
Still, I would not expect miracles. Despite lack of British participation, the Continentals have yet to make anything coherent of the Eurozone. During the Cold War, Western Europeans were subject to much more significant geopolitical pressure – economic, military, and cultural dependence on the United States, a massive Soviet military threat, humiliating energy dependence on the Mideast manifest in the Oil Shocks – without this leading to any serious attempt by the Europeans to recover their sovereignty and power. The postwar European democracies were satisfied with the Pursuit of Purchasing Power. The threats of today really are less immediate or downright minor in comparison.
Charles de Gaulle at a press conference, ever pedagogical.
Brexit happening seems a good time to recall a farsighted Frenchman who predicted that none of this would work : Charles de Gaulle. President de Gaulle twice vetoed Britain’s candidacy to join the then-European Economic Community (EEC), causing an uproar in Atlanticist circles.
De Gaulle had long thought that the so-called “Europeanists” were not sincere and/or coherent in their claim to be building a strong and independent federal Europe. He said in a May 1962 press conference:
France’s proposals [on Europe] have raised two objections, which incidentally are perfectly contradictory even though they are presented by the same people. . . . These critics tell us: “You want to create a Europe of nations, while we want to create supranational Europe.” As if a simple phrase were sufficient to confound these powerfully established entities that are the nations and the States. And then, these same critics simultaneously tell us: “England has submitted its candidacy to join the [European] Common Market. So long as they are not in, we won’t be able to do anything political.”
And yet, everyone knows that England, as a great State and a nation true to itself, will never consent to being dissolved in some utopian construct.
Prescient words!
The British comedy show Yes, Minister! has a scene very humorously making the same point.
Six months later, De Gaulle vetoed Britain’s entry of the EEC, citing British ties to the United States, economic relations with the Commonwealth, and general differences with those he called “the Continentals.” In January 1963, De Gaulle said that in the event of British membership:
We can expect that the cohesion of all the members, which would be very numerous and very diverse, would not last long and that, in the end, there would emerge a colossal Atlantic Community under American dependence and leadership, which would soon absorb the European Community.
This eventuality may appear perfectly legitimate in the eyes of some, but it is not at all what France wished to do and has done, which is a genuinely European construct.
In short, De Gaulle accused the British of being a kind of American Trojan Horse . . . and who could blame him?
In 1967, De Gaulle again vetoed British membership citing basically the same concerns. Britain could not join the EEC unless Britain either changed or “if the Continentals forever gave up on creating a Europe which is European.” Historically, the latter view prevailed.
As a rule, the early “European federalists” were never interested in creating a strong and independent Europe. Like Jean Monnet and Walter Hallstein, they were just Atlanticist networkers, whose personal prosperity depended on these deracinated and foreign circles, rather than on Europe’s native power. I cannot tell you how revolted I was when I tried to read the memoirs of both Monnet (600 pages of nothing) and Hallstein (who claimed, in 1970s, when the EEC was barely an entity at all, that the Europeans were “halfway” to federation and just needed one last push to get there).
Anyway, Britain’s departure from the European Union opens the way for the Continentals to try, a bit more earnestly, to create a truly sovereign and independent “European Europe.” This is not an absurd ambition. London was in some ways Europe’s only top-tier “global city.” Paris, Berlin, and Brussels really are secondary nodes. There’s a charmingly provincial quality to European politics which must be preserved. While in the Anglosphere Jews and Asians have massively displaced White Gentiles among their cultural and economic elites, the same is not really true in Continental Europe, certainly outside of France. Time will tell.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report