theduran--2020-02-29--Some Idaho residents prepare for the Second American Civil War

The “ liberal versus conservative ” political polarization has been on a massive increase over the last three decades in the United States .
Where there used to be dispassionate policy discussions , debate and often some sort of compromise over policy decisions based in ideological theories , now , people of differing political viewpoints appear to be more and more “ siloed ” with some disturbing results .
Among these is the increasing conviction that America is headed for a Second Civil War .
California is so solidly Democrat that Republican candidates do not even appear on some ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are still stuck solidly within the presently held ideology of ultra-liberal , ranging from out-and-out socialism to something marginally less “ liberal ” than points like abortion anytime , confiscatory taxes on the top earners , legalized drugs… One may note that it seems like the options are simply either “ bad ” or “ catastrophically bad.
” While California has a large population of conservatives , they are so outnumbered by city liberals that their voices are effectively silenced .
One group has an idea to change this : Why not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and California , to join Idaho , a conservative state ?
The reasoning for this idea is presented on the website www.greateridaho.org ( slight edits for clarity ) : One thing can be said : The proponents of this idea know that much of politics in the US is indeed a shell-game regarding money .
Cleverly , the use of tax savings for the liberal states through the secession of their conservative counties is counted as a win-win for everyone .
How does Idaho win if it is taking on relatively poor counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long term .
The immediate benefit is representation for Trump-supporting and otherwise conservative counties that has not been available lately in these super-polarized , super Democrat states .
We read , hear and see the stories of the disaster that has become California – the feckless government and law enforcement agencies , political correctness placed as policy , thereby advancing drug-use , homelessness and all sorts of crime , and amazing levels of arrogance and condescension toward the conservative populations ( which largely include agricultural concerns – spelled F-O-O-D ) … But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plan is very strategic .
Read here : And , here is the biggest piece , and probably the driver of the whole idea : The movement is gaining media coverage , though the commonly held opinion is “ never gon na happen.
” The movement is also growing .
A number of media outlets have been reporting on this story , and not just Fox News .
CBS and NBC affiliates are also following the story , with CBS noting this : Mike McCarter , chief petitioner of the secession effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in its infancy and would take years to accomplish , even if successful .
The process for counties to leave Oregon include passing a ballot initiative , getting approval from the state legislature — currently controlled by Democrats — and then also getting Idaho to pass legislation approving new counties into the state .
McCarter said the movement ultimately is about signaling the unhappiness rural conservatives in Oregon have with the state legislature .
McCarter has gotten the “ green light ” in at least three Oregon counties — Josephine , Douglas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first step in the secession process , which would be collecting signatures to eventually end up on the November 2 ballot .
“ Rural counties have become increasingly outraged by laws coming out of the Oregon Legislature that threaten our livelihoods , our industries , our wallet , our gun rights , and our values , ” Mike McCarter , one of the chief petitioners of the movement , wrote on the website for the Greater Idaho movement .
The perspectives offered in this proposal appear to be very sound ; in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pragmatic , businesslike approach to make a deal that is “ win-win ” for everyone… at least in the short term .
But with the increasing elitism in large liberal American cities , the placing of farming communities into what could end up being an entirely foreign country means that this plan is definitely designed so that the conservatives , the farmers , the people that make life possible for everyone else – that these people have the final laugh .

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 “liberal versus conservative” political polarization has been on a massive increase over the last three decades in the United States. Where there used to be dispassionate policy discussions, debate and often some sort of compromise over policy decisions based in ideological theories, now, people of differing political viewpoints appear to be more and more “siloed” with some disturbing results. Among these is the increasing conviction that America is headed for a Second Civil War.
California is so solidly Democrat that Republican candidates do not even appear on some ballots in the state. The only differences there are still stuck solidly within the presently held ideology of ultra-liberal, ranging from out-and-out socialism to something marginally less “liberal” than points like abortion anytime, confiscatory taxes on the top earners, legalized drugs… One may note that it seems like the options are simply either “bad” or “catastrophically bad.” While California has a large population of conservatives, they are so outnumbered by city liberals that their voices are effectively silenced.
One group has an idea to change this:
Why not allow conservative counties in Oregon, Washington and California, to join Idaho, a conservative state?
The reasoning for this idea is presented on the website www.greateridaho.org (slight edits for clarity):
…This proposal presents options for Oregon and California to move their borders to put conservative counties on the other side of their borders to make Idaho bigger. A January 2019 [Illinois] poll of those categorized as “liberal” or “very liberal”, living in the blue part of [that] state showed that showed that 2/3 were willing to let low-income Trump-voting counties in their state become a part of another state. Although this was an Illinois poll, we hope that a poll of Oregon and California would yield similar results. Most legislators in the majority party in these states are more concerned about primary elections than general elections because they have safe seats, so it is liberal opinion that they follow… The Democratic Party has a supermajority in the legislatures of Oregon and California, and the governors are Democrats. These legislatures can be expected to be in favor of strengthening the position of their party in their state by letting Trump-voting counties leave. They should be in favor of improving their state finances by allowing the departure of counties that don’t pay their share of income and sales taxes because of lower incomes. After the border change, the remainder of Oregon (northwestern Oregon) would have an annual per capita personal income (2017 BEA) $1869 higher than Oregon’s is. This would allow Oregon taxes to be decreased so that the average Oregon wage earner would save $341 in taxes annually, assuming a marginal tax rate of 11% (the typical Oregonian earner is in the 9% state income tax bracket, but also pays other taxes). The territory that we propose removing from Oregon has only 21% of the population of Oregon. After the border change, the remainder of California (excluding northernmost California) would have an annual per capita personal income (2017 BEA) $148 higher than California’s is now. Thiswould allow California taxes to be decreased so that the average California wage earner would save $29 in taxes annually, assuming a marginal tax rate of 11.8% (the typical California earner is in the 9.3% state income tax bracket, but also pays other taxes). This improvement is large considering that California would only lose 0.9% of its population (less than one percent).
Tongue-in-cheek sarcasm or great planning? You decide.
One thing can be said: The proponents of this idea know that much of politics in the US is indeed a shell-game regarding money. Cleverly, the use of tax savings for the liberal states through the secession of their conservative counties is counted as a win-win for everyone.
How does Idaho win if it is taking on relatively poor counties?
There are benefits both immediate and long term. The immediate benefit is representation for Trump-supporting and otherwise conservative counties that has not been available lately in these super-polarized, super Democrat states. We read, hear and see the stories of the disaster that has become California – the feckless government and law enforcement agencies, political correctness placed as policy, thereby advancing drug-use, homelessness and all sorts of crime, and amazing levels of arrogance and condescension toward the conservative populations (which largely include agricultural concerns – spelled F-O-O-D)…
But the benefits are also long term, and the plan is very strategic. Read here:
1) Financial: This proposal makes the tax base of Idaho broader by increasing the land area of the state and increasing the population by 71%. If mining in one area declines, it may be increasing in another area. The economy of southern/eastern Oregon and northernmost California would improve very dramatically under Idaho law, regulations, and courts. These areas are mountains and arid highlands, just like Idaho. Idaho law and governmental focus is suitable to mining, logging, and agriculture, and it is business-friendly. As the economy improves, incomes and employment would increase, so that these areas would pay more than their share of Greater Idaho’s tax burden. This proposal would bring thousands of jobs to Idaho’s capitol city, and to the locations of Idaho’s public universities and colleges. The state government would gain economies of scale, as the population would increase by 71% to 2.9 million, making it almost half the population of the average US state. The Idaho public university system would gain the Oregon Institute of Technology – Klamath Falls, Eastern Oregon University, and Southern Oregon University. Coal and natural gas industries in the Rocky Mountains have an incentive to support this movement because state laws in Oregon, Washington, and California prevent the construction of a coal/natural gas port needed for export to Asia. If Idaho’s legislature is unconvinced, county governments in Oregon & California could offer to pay Idaho for the privilege of joining the state. 2) Political: 80% of Idaho state legislators are Republican. The Trump vote of Greater Idaho would have been 60.3%, whereas Idaho only gave Trump 59.3%. Idaho would have the satisfaction of freeing 1.2 million people from blue state law. The Idaho Legislature currently has only 70 representatives and 35 senators. This number could be expanded so that the districts in Idaho would not need to be redrawn.
And, here is the biggest piece, and probably the driver of the whole idea:
3) Sovereignty: Idaho would no longer be a land-locked state, which could allow it to gain more political autonomy in the future. The increase in population from the aforementioned counties would make Idaho more self-sufficient. A recent Reuters poll shows that one third of Americans expect civil war in America within the next five years. No one knows the future, but everyone knows that political structures don’t last forever. Indeed, only three empires or countries in history have managed to maintain the allegiance of more people than the USA has. It is unlikely that red states and blue states would choose to remain in the same federation after a crisis. It is possible that blue states and red states of America will part ways to provide apeaceful end to the culture wars. In this case, Idaho’s access to the Pacific via Columbia River locks would be dependent on good relations with a foreign country. This imperils the shipment of Idaho’s wheat crop and many other bulk products, reducing the independence of action of the state. Having ports on the Pacific would reduce the cost of such a crisis. Texas may secede from the Union. A 2016 Reuters poll showed that more Texans were in favor of secession than opposed to secession. If Texas secedes, the USA will never have another conservative president. On the other hand, if Texas does not secede, federal law will continue to force Texas to accept immigration that will turn it into a blue state within a decade. Either way, the USA will never have another conservative president after Trump. Texas’ poll is analyzed here: www.facebook.com/notes/peaceful-red-state-secession/unreported-2017-reuters-poll- shows-states-ready-to-secede/391466311426359 Giving Idaho ports on the Pacific (particularly Reedsport, Coos Bay, and Crescent City) gives Idaho the option of self-determination if independence becomes expedient in the future. These ports could be deepened, but Coos Bay already has a MLLW (mean lower low water) depth of 37 feet and can handle ships 500 feet in length. Reedsport has a MLLW depth of 15 feet. Also, the locks on the Columbia River up to Lewiston, Idaho have a minimum depth of 15 feet. Utah and other states could join Idaho in a federation if Idaho secedes first. If Idaho chooses, it could possibly accept all red states into a new federation, as they are all contiguous (except Alaska). Idaho autonomy is bolstered by the fact that it gets much of its power from hydropower, which is immune to embargo. It is also self-sufficient in food production. It has a border with another country. Of course, Idaho would continue to trade with the US after secession.
The movement is gaining media coverage, though the commonly held opinion is “never gonna happen.” The movement is also growing. A number of media outlets have been reporting on this story, and not just Fox News. CBS and NBC affiliates are also following the story, with CBS noting this:
Mike McCarter, chief petitioner of the secession effort, has noted though that the movement is in its infancy and would take years to accomplish, even if successful. The process for counties to leave Oregon include passing a ballot initiative, getting approval from the state legislature — currently controlled by Democrats — and then also getting Idaho to pass legislation approving new counties into the state. McCarter said the movement ultimately is about signaling the unhappiness rural conservatives in Oregon have with the state legislature. McCarter has gotten the “green light” in at least three Oregon counties — Josephine, Douglas and Umatilla — that would start the first step in the secession process, which would be collecting signatures to eventually end up on the November 2 ballot. “Rural counties have become increasingly outraged by laws coming out of the Oregon Legislature that threaten our livelihoods, our industries, our wallet, our gun rights, and our values,” Mike McCarter, one of the chief petitioners of the movement, wrote on the website for the Greater Idaho movement.
The perspectives offered in this proposal appear to be very sound; in fact, they appear revolutionary in terms of a pragmatic, businesslike approach to make a deal that is “win-win” for everyone… at least in the short term. But with the increasing elitism in large liberal American cities, the placing of farming communities into what could end up being an entirely foreign country means that this plan is definitely designed so that the conservatives, the farmers, the people that make life possible for everyone else – that these people have the final laugh.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-29--Turkey Asks NATO to Join Its War Against Syria and Russia

The spokesperson for the Islamist party of Turkey ’ s President Tayyip Erdogan has called upon all of NATO to go to war against Syria for Syria ’ s having killed dozens of Turkey ’ s troops in order for Syria to defeat Turkey ’ s invasion and military occupation of Syria ’ s Idlib Province , which borders on Turkey .
Going to war against Syria would mean going to war also against Russia , which is in Syria to protect Syria ’ s sovereignty over its own territory .
If the United States accepts that Turkish proposal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Darius Shahtahmasebi reported for Russia ’ s RT News on the morning of February 28th , Turkey is calling for NATO ’ s protection after 33 of its soldiers were killed in an apparent Syrian airstrike in Idlib , allegedly while fighting in terrorist ranks .
In the regional chaos that ensues , only one player stands to gain .
Speculation over what ’ s to come next has seen # article 5 trending on Twitter in the hours following the attacks , after Omer Celik , spokesman for Turkey ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ankara that he was looking at requesting formal NATO protection against Damascus and , by proxy , the Russian air force .
“ We call on NATO to [ start ] consultations .
This is not [ an attack ] on Turkey only , it is an attack on the international community .
A common reaction is needed .
The attack was also against NATO , ” Celik told Turkish media .
Article 5 of the NATO treaty says an attack on one member is an attack on them all .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stating that it stands by its “ NATO ally Turkey.
” It further stated that it continues to “ call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime , Russia and Iranian-backed forces.
” Never one to let us down , the US envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson also told journalists that “ everything is on the table.
” This is the opportunity for U.S. President Donald Trump to join his opposition , Democratic Party ’ s , and even his own Party ’ s , hate-Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if he wants to .
( For example , it was a unified Congress , both Parties , that forced him , on 17 July 2018 , to reverse himself and say that Russia had assisted in his having become the U.S. President .
He needed to be forced in order to say he agreed with that statement . )
Internally , within Islamist-ruled Turkey , the official Anadolu Press Agency sub-headlined one English-language news report , “ Crisis in Idlib has crossed all limits , says presidential spokesman after regime attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Turkey ’ s presidential spokesman on Friday called on the international community to take measures to de-escalate tensions in Syria after dozens of Turkish soldiers were martyred in a late night attack by the regime forces.
” No mention was made , about those ‘ martyrs ’ , that this had occurred in Syrian territory , where Turkish forces were invaders and military occupiers , and that the ‘ regime ’ they referred to is Syria ’ s committedly and ideologically secular , non-sectarian , Government , which is the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but from which Islamist Turkey is now trying to seize Syria ’ s Idlib Province and to include it within Turkey ’ s own territory ) .
By 7PM Turkish time on Friday the 28th , Firat Kozok of Bloomberg News headlined “ Turkey Says It Has No Choice But to ‘ Loosen ’ Stance on Refugees ” and reported that Turkey is pressed by developments in Syria ’ s Idlib and has no choice but to “ loosen ” its policy of preventing refugees from travelling on to Europe , President Recep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Altun told reporters in Ankara .
“ If Idlib falls , then millions of Syrian refugees will try to escape to Turkey and Europe .
Turkey no longer has the possibility to provide resources for and help these people , ” Altun said .
This is applying pressure upon the European member-nations in NATO to either join Turkey ’ s now very hot war against both Syria and Russia , or else to become faced with Turkey ’ s release of the tens of thousands of ‘ rebels ’ ( mainly jihadists ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Idlib Province have been protecting against military fire from Syria ’ s Army and from Russia ’ s Air Force .
The events that led to this critical impasse were reported by me last night ( the 27th ) , and that report thus continues here , in order to provide context to these events : On February 26th , Tayyip Erdogan , Turkey ’ s President , told his Islamist political party that Idlib , which is the most heavily jihadist of all of Syria ’ s provinces and the province where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been defeated but not killed by the Syrian army elsewhere in the Syrian war , is now permanently under Turkey ’ s protection , and belongs to Turkey — Turkish territory .
Russia ’ s RT news headlined on the 26th , “ ‘ We ’ re the hosts there ’ : Erdogan says Turkey won ’ t pull back from Syria ’ s sovereign territory , gives Assad ultimatum to retreat ” , and reported that , The Turkish leader has ruled out withdrawal from Idlib , where his forces are backing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also gave Damascus an ultimatum to retreat beyond Turkey ’ s observation posts placed on Syrian soil .
“ We will not step back in Idlib .
We are not the guests in this realm , we are the hosts , ” Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a meeting of his AK party on Wednesday .
Vowing to bring “ the regime ’ s attacks ” to an end , Erdogan said Ankara is giving Damascus time to pull forces back from Turkish observation posts .
The very next day , on the 27th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bannered “ Situation in Syria ’ s Idlib ‘ in favor of Turkey ’ : Turkish president says Turkey has also reversed situation in Libya , which was previously in favor of Libyan warlord Haftar ” and they reported that Erdogan saw signs that Turkey was introducing new international realities in both Syria and Libya .
Later on the 27th , RT headlined “ 33 Turkish soldiers confirmed killed in Idlib airstrike as Erdogan chairs emergency meeting on Syria ” and reported that “ Turkish officials attributed the strike to the Syrian military.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syrian forces would not only be met by Russian defense of Syrian forces but would be clearly a Syrian response to Turkish aggression and therefore any U.S. involvement supporting Turkey in this matter would be America ’ s participating in Turkey ’ s blatantly illegal grab for Idlib .
Even America ’ s allies in Europe and elsewhere might then turn away from the U.S. , and away from Turkey .
This extraordinarily assertive position by Erdogan results from the sequence of events that will be described here : U.S. President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late August and early September of 2018 that if Syria and Russia would try to restore Syrian Government control over Syria ’ s Idlib Province , then the U.S. and its allies would greatly escalate their war against Syria ’ s Government .
For example , on 3 September 2018 , Trump tweeted , “ President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province .
The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy .
Hundreds of thousands of people could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the following day , that , Trump ’ s tweet comes as Iran ’ s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the start of his visit to Damascus said that “ terrorists must be purged ” from the province and Idlib in its entirety must be returned under government control .
“ Syria ’ s territorial integrity should be safeguarded and all tribes and groups , as one society , should start the reconstruction process , and the refugees should return to their homes , ” Mr Zarif said .
Zarif met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walid al-Moallem .
They mostly discussed the expected September 7th summit , which will happen in Tehran .
Russian , Turkish , Syrian and Iranian leaders are supposed to meet and discuss the situation in Idlib .
A statement from Assad ’ s office said that Iran and Syria “ had similar views on the different issues ” that are to be discussed .
On 10 September 2018 , I wrote that “ Unless Syria will simply hand its most heavily pro-jihadist province , Idlib , to adjoining Turkey , which claims to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add 20,000 more , ” there would be a war between NATO member Turkey , which has invaded there , versus Russia , which — at Syria ’ s request — has been assisting Syria ’ s Government to conquer all of Syria ’ s jihadists .
Syria ’ s Army has gradually liberated and retaken most of Syria ’ s territory from jihadists , but had been using Idlib Province as a collection-area for the ones who were holding Syrian civilians as human shields .
Syria was bussing into Idlib the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This was being done so as to minimize the numbers of civilians who would be killed when Syria ’ s army would retake an area , under Russian air-cover .
This would allow the civilians there to escape to Syrian-Government-held territory , and the armed forces of Syria and Russia then to move in and slaughter the jihadists who remained there , so that Syria would retake that area from the U.S.-backed jihadists .
Then , seven days later , I headlined “ Putin and Erdogan Plan Syria-Idlib DMZ as I Recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s President Vladimir Putin and Turkey ’ s President Tayyip Erdogan jointly announced on September 17th in Tehran , “ We ’ ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15 .
The zone will be 15-20km wide , ” which compares to the Korean DMZ ’ s 4-km width .
Though the understanding that Erdogan had reached with Iran ’ s President Rouhani and with Russia ’ s President Putin was that this would be only a temporary measure in order to get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World War III if Syria and Russia promptly let loose and slaughtered the ‘ rebels ’ in Idlib ( those being Americas ’ s previous main fighters to defeat and replace Syria ’ s Government ) , Erdogan soon presented clear indications that he actually wanted to seize Syrian territory and to get as much of it as he could — that his goal in Syria included expanding Turkey into Syria .
His temporary policing function , as agreed-to by Russia , to isolate and not allow to escape the defeated jihadists who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be far more than that : it turned out to be Erdogan ’ s protection of those jihadists .
On September 25th of 2018 , I had bannered “ Turkey Now Controls Syria ’ s Jihadists ” , and presented the historical background behind this .
Then , on 14 July 2019 , I headlined “ Turkey Will Get a Chunk of Syria : An Advantage of Being in NATO ” , and explained that because of NATO ’ s backing of Turkey ’ s seizure of Syrian territory , Turkey was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branches of Turkey ’ s Gaziantep University and of Turkey ’ s Harran University , as well as of building supportive infrastructure for those facilities — absorbing portions of northern Syria into Turkey .
So , this has been a gradual process , and now Erdogan , backed by U.S.President Trump and by NATO , will be saving the lives of the tens of thousands of jihadists ( plus their families ) who had been defeated elsewhere in Syria , and who thus will avoid what the U.S. and its allies had warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mass-slaughtering those defeated jihadists ( which the U.S. and its allies still call ‘ Syrian rebels ’ — even though most of them aren ’ t even Syrian ) .
As I noted in the 14 July 2019 article : At that time , just prior to the Tehran conference — and this was actually the reason why the conference was held — the U.S. and its allies , and the U.N. , were demanding that an all-out invasion of Idlib , which had been planned by the Governments of Syria and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for ‘ humanitarian ’ reasons .
There was all that ‘ humanitarian ’ concern ( led by the United States ) for the world ’ s biggest concentration of Nusra and Nusra-led jihadists — and for Syria ’ s most jihadist-supporting civilian population .
So much ‘ kindness ’ , such ‘ admirable ’ ‘ humanitarianism ’ .
Furthermore the U.S. Government was threatening to greatly increase its forces against Syria if that invasion by Syria and by Russia into Idlib ( which is , after all , part of Syria — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even of the U.N. , at all ? )
were to be carried out .
The Tehran conference was meeting in order to resolve that emergency situation ( mainly America ’ s threats of a possible war against Russia ) , so as to forestall this attack .
Trump ’ s backing of Turkey ’ s aggression was taking the United States even deeper into his predecessor , Barack Obama ’ s , support of jihadists in order to overthrow Syria ’ s non-sectarian Government and install one that would be acceptable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arabia .
And now Erdogan again is threatening Russia with WW III if Russia continues to defend Syria ’ s sovereignty over Idlib — Syria ’ s most-jihadist province .
On February 26th , Yeni Safak bannered “ Turkey will never compromise on Sochi deal for Syria , says Erdoğan ” ; so , Erdogan is openly threatening WW III if Russia and Syria resist Turkey ’ s seizure of Idlib and protection of its many thousands of jihadists .
Although the U.S. has led this apparent victory for jihadists and for international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been its spearhead .
Russia and Iran had not agreed to this .
Certainly , Syria ’ s leader , Bashar al-Assad , hadn ’ t agreed to anything like this outcome .
Turkey , in its 10 September 2018 agreement with Russia and with Iran , had committed itself to separating-out and killing the jihadists ; but , instead , Turkey has been protecting them , and now will be absorbing them , and taking Idlib Province from adjoining Syria .
As recently as 22 October 2019 , Erdogan had promised Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reiterate their commitment to the preservation of the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria , ” and that , “ They emphasize their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and to disrupt separatist agendas in the Syrian territory.
” Yeni Safak ’ s February 26th article opened “ Turkey will never compromise on the Sochi deal on embattled Idlib , Syria , and it expects the deal to be implemented , said the country ’ s president on Wednesday.
” Turkey “ expects the deal to be implemented ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a leading neoconservative in the Administrations of George W. Bush , Barack Obama , and Donald Trump , admitted , on 27 July 2017 , that “ Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11 , tied directly to Ayman al-Zawahiri , ” and that “ to send in tens of thousands of tons of weapons and looking the other way as these foreign fighters come into Syria , may not have been the best approach , ” but yet the U.S. regime continues that approach , and backs Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those jihadists .
Previously , McGurk had been U.S. President Barack Obama ’ s special envoy for the anti-Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL ) coalition .
He had supported jihadists led by al-Nusra ( Syrian branch of Al Qaeda ) and supported separatist Kurds in Syria , to overthrow Syria ’ s Government .
Even the liberal ( or Democratic Party , pro-Obama ) neoconservative Washington Post had not hidden the fact that “ The U.S. team , headed by senior White House adviser Robert Malley and State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the newspaper that “ Russia was said to have rejected a U.S. proposal to leave Jabhat al-Nusra off-limits to bombing as part of a cease-fire ” — the fact that Obama was actually protecting those jihadists ( though not protecting ISIS or ‘ ISIL ’ ) .
Obama backed al-Qaeda there , and so does Trump .
However , when Trump ran for the Presidency in 2016 , he promised to reverse Obama ’ s obsession to overthrow Syria ’ s President Bashar al-Assad .
That , and similar promises he made , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
Establishment .
They became his implacable enemies .
Finally , on 10 November 2016 , right after Trump ’ s election , that same newspaper , the WP , bannered “ Obama directs Pentagon to target al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria , one of the most formidable forces fighting Assad ” and , without noting that Obama had supported that “ al-Qaeda affiliate ” until then , but instead falsely reporting that “ the administration had largely ignored until now ” it , said : “ While Obama , White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State John F. Kerry and special presidential envoy Brett McGurk agreed with [ the super-neoconservative Obama Secretary of Defense Ashton ] Carter on the need to keep the focus on the Islamic State , they favored shifting resources to try to prevent al-Nusra from becoming a bigger threat down the road.
” That was extreme euphemism , coming from this extremely neoconservative liberal newspaper .
Actually , Obama had built his overthrow-Assad operation mainly upon al-Nusra , to train and lead the tens of thousands of foreign jihadists who had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was one of the most lying , deceptive , newspapers reporting anywhere in the world about international relations , very heavily slanted neoconservative — in favor of expanding the U.S. mega-corporate empire .
Whereas the separatist Kurds were America ’ s main proxy-army fighting in Syria ’ s northeast , al-Nusra led America ’ s proxy-armies everywhere else in Syria .
That 10 November 2016 WP article also asserted “ But aides say Obama grew frustrated that more wasn ’ t being done by the Pentagon and the intelligence community to kill al-Nusra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from top counterterrorism officials about the gathering threat they posed.
” That ’ s another lie , because Secretary of State John Kerry had actually fought inside the Administration against Obama ’ s policy on that , and the policy came from Obama himself — and NOT from his subordinates ( such as Ashton Carter ) , as that lying newspaper alleged .
The article referred to “ the expanded push against al-Nusra ” — but here is the reality : by no later than December 2012 Obama had settled upon al-Nusra to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria .
And the reason for that has very deep historical roots — all hidden from the American public .
Instead of such realism , that propaganda-organ , in its article on 10 November 2016 , wrote : A bitterly divided Obama administration had tried over the summer to cut a deal with Moscow on a joint U.S.-Russian air campaign against al-Nusra , in exchange for a Russian commitment to ground Syrian government warplanes and to allow more humanitarian supplies into besieged areas .
But the negotiations broke down in acrimony , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to separate al-Nusra from more moderate rebel groups and Washington accusing the Russians of war crimes in Aleppo .
‘ Humanitarian ’ .
How stupid does the owner of the Washington Post think that the American public is in order for it still to believe that its Government really cares about being “ humanitarian ” around the world — especially in countries it ’ s trying to conquer , such as Iraq , Iran , Syria , Venezuela , Bolivia … ?
Really ?
He thinks it ’ s that stupid ?
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help to make them so misinformed ?
Russia had accused the United States of sheltering al-Nusra , a charge repeated Thursday in Moscow by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov .
“ The president doesn ’ t want this group to be what inherits the country if Assad ever does fall , ” a senior U.S. official said .
“ This can not be the viable Syrian opposition .
It ’ s al-Qaeda.
” Officials said the administration ’ s hope is that more-moderate rebel factions will be able to gain ground as both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased military pressure .
The article also featured a headline and link to their 9 November 2016 news-story , “ Intelligence community is already feeling a sense of dread about Trump ” .
Even back then , the Democratic Party ’ s billionaires were pumping their agents ’ allegations which would lead to Russiagate , the Mueller Report , and ultimately to Ukrainegate and Trump ’ s impeachment for being insufficiently supportive of President Obama ’ s 2014 coup and conquest of Ukraine , which Obama had started planning by no later than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning to any current or future U.S. President , that to buck the collective will of America ’ s billionaires is to commit political suicide .
It doesn ’ t make any difference what the President ’ s Party is — the dictate , from the billionaires , applies to any U.S. President .
This ‘ restored Cold War ’ is nothing of the sort — on the U.S. side , the war secretly continued uninterrupted , even after the Soviet Union ended its communism , and its Warsaw-Pact mirror of America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On February 28th , the German Government news-agency Deutsche Welle ( DW ) bannered “ Idlib : ‘ I ’ d rather suffer bombs than Assad ’ ” and provided an extensive interview by telephone with someone in Idlib who says that she supports democracy and tolerance of all religions and is determined to overthrow the present Government of Syria .
If her pro-democracy , anti-jihadist , allegations are honest , then she is an extraordinary exception for Idlib , as has been documented by the periodic polls that the British polling firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during 2014 , 2015 , 2016 , and 2018 .
For examples : In the 2014 report ( page 12 ) only 4 % of the people sampled in Idlib said that they supported “ The Assad Government.
” This was far lower than the percentages in any other Syrian province .
52 % supported either “ armed opposition ” or “ Violent religious extremist groups.
” This was far higher than in any other province except ISIS-controlled Raqqah , where it was 59 % .
In the 2015 report ( page 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sampled in Idlib said that al-Nusra ( al-Qaeda in Syria ) was a “ Completely positive influence ” ; an additional 35 % said it was a “ Somewhat positive influence.
” That 70 % support for al-Qaeda was by far the highest found in any of Syria ’ s provinces .
If the person who was at the other end of that DW phone-call was authentic , then she was anything but representative of the people in Idlib .
At around 10 AM Eastern time in the U.S. on the 28th , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Erdoğan and Putin may meet next week , Kremlin says ” , and reported that “ Erdoğan and Putin spoke over the phone Friday to try to defuse tensions that rose significantly in northwestern Syria after 33 Turkish troops were killed in a Syrian regime airstrike.
” Either Erdogan is trying to find a face-saving way out of his huge gamble , or Putin is trying to prevent WW III , or both .
An hour later , that newspaper bannered “ Turkey determined to remove Assad regime from Syria ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is it that a country can proudly proclaim in a headline that it will commit international aggression in blatant violation of international law and yet not be roundly damned by the publics in all countries for doing such a vile thing ?
At around noon , U.S. Eastern time , on the 28th , Turkey ’ s TRT World bannered “ NATO and the West ’ s dereliction of duty in Syria and Turkey ” and opened : “ If the West and NATO continue on the path they have chosen , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-Soviet world order in his image.
” After trying to scare Europe ’ s leaders by threatening to overwhelm them with maybe hundreds of thousands of released jihadists who have been basically penned-up in Idlib , Erdogan was trying to appeal to those leaders ’ obligations to NATO , America ’ s anti-Russian military alliance .
At around 1:30 PM U.S. Eastern time on the 28th , Britain ’ s Guardian headlined “ Nato expresses ‘ full solidarity ’ with Turkey over Syria airstrikes ” but NATO chief “ Stoltenberg offered no immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the article went on to report that the UK and five of its allies would bring the matter to the U.N. Security Council on Friday night ( where Turkey ’ s demands would even more certainly go nowhere ) .
The reality of Stoltenberg ’ s statement ( which had been issued at 12:33 Eastern time ) was a total humiliation to Erdogan ’ s fantasies that because of his country ’ s NATO membership he could get the U.S. to invade Russia .
Stoltenberg gave the standard NATO hate-talk against Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Allies condemn the continued indiscriminate air strikes by the Syrian regime and its backer Russia in Idlib province.
” Even when a NATO member engages in clear-cut foreign aggression in violation of the U.N. Charter ’ s prohibiton against that , and explicitly violating the International Criminal Court ’ s “ Crime of Aggression ” , NATO will spew its standard hate-propaganda against the countries that were and are victims of that blatantly illegal aggression by the NATO member-country .
Notwithstanding NATO ’ s sometimes diplomatic language , it is — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cold War in 1991 — basically an extremely dangerous militarized hate-organization , of which every one of its member-nations should be profoundly embarrassed to belong .
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 spokesperson for the Islamist party of Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan has called upon all of NATO to go to war against Syria for Syria’s having killed dozens of Turkey’s troops in order for Syria to defeat Turkey’s invasion and military occupation of Syria’s Idlib Province, which borders on Turkey. Going to war against Syria would mean going to war also against Russia, which is in Syria to protect Syria’s sovereignty over its own territory. If the United States accepts that Turkish proposal, then World War III will consequently result.
Darius Shahtahmasebi reported for Russia’s RT News on the morning of February 28th,
Turkey is calling for NATO’s protection after 33 of its soldiers were killed in an apparent Syrian airstrike in Idlib, allegedly while fighting in terrorist ranks. In the regional chaos that ensues, only one player stands to gain.
Speculation over what’s to come next has seen #article 5 trending on Twitter in the hours following the attacks, after Omer Celik, spokesman for Turkey’s ruling AKP party, indicated to reporters in Ankara that he was looking at requesting formal NATO protection against Damascus and, by proxy, the Russian air force.
“We call on NATO to [start] consultations. This is not [an attack] on Turkey only, it is an attack on the international community. A common reaction is needed. The attack was also against NATO,” Celik told Turkish media.
Article 5 of the NATO treaty says an attack on one member is an attack on them all.
The US State Department also condemned the attack, stating that it stands by its “NATO ally Turkey.” It further stated that it continues to “call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, Russia and Iranian-backed forces.” Never one to let us down, the US envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson also told journalists that “everything is on the table.”
This is the opportunity for U.S. President Donald Trump to join his opposition, Democratic Party’s, and even his own Party’s, hate-Russia campaign, by unleashing World War III, if he wants to. (For example, it was a unified Congress, both Parties, that forced him, on 17 July 2018, to reverse himself and say that Russia had assisted in his having become the U.S. President. He needed to be forced in order to say he agreed with that statement.)
Internally, within Islamist-ruled Turkey, the official Anadolu Press Agency sub-headlined one English-language news report, “Crisis in Idlib has crossed all limits, says presidential spokesman after regime attack martyrs 33 Turkish troops” and opened, “Turkey’s presidential spokesman on Friday called on the international community to take measures to de-escalate tensions in Syria after dozens of Turkish soldiers were martyred in a late night attack by the regime forces.” No mention was made, about those ‘martyrs’, that this had occurred in Syrian territory, where Turkish forces were invaders and military occupiers, and that the ‘regime’ they referred to is Syria’s committedly and ideologically secular, non-sectarian, Government, which is the only internationally recognized Government that Syria has (but from which Islamist Turkey is now trying to seize Syria’s Idlib Province and to include it within Turkey’s own territory).
By 7PM Turkish time on Friday the 28th, Firat Kozok of Bloomberg News headlined “Turkey Says It Has No Choice But to ‘Loosen’ Stance on Refugees” and reported that
Turkey is pressed by developments in Syria’s Idlib and has no choice but to “loosen” its policy of preventing refugees from travelling on to Europe, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s communications director Fahrettin Altun told reporters in Ankara.
“If Idlib falls, then millions of Syrian refugees will try to escape to Turkey and Europe. Turkey no longer has the possibility to provide resources for and help these people,” Altun said.
This is applying pressure upon the European member-nations in NATO to either join Turkey’s now very hot war against both Syria and Russia, or else to become faced with Turkey’s release of the tens of thousands of ‘rebels’ (mainly jihadists) whom Turkish forces in Syria’s Idlib Province have been protecting against military fire from Syria’s Army and from Russia’s Air Force.
The events that led to this critical impasse were reported by me last night (the 27th), and that report thus continues here, in order to provide context to these events:
“Turkey Now Claims Syria’s Idlib Province as Turkish Territory”
Eric Zuesse
On February 26th, Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s President, told his Islamist political party that Idlib, which is the most heavily jihadist of all of Syria’s provinces and the province where Syria had been sending jihadists who had been defeated but not killed by the Syrian army elsewhere in the Syrian war, is now permanently under Turkey’s protection, and belongs to Turkey — Turkish territory. Russia’s RT news headlined on the 26th, “‘We’re the hosts there’: Erdogan says Turkey won’t pull back from Syria’s sovereign territory, gives Assad ultimatum to retreat”, and reported that,
The Turkish leader has ruled out withdrawal from Idlib, where his forces are backing militants fighting the Syrian Army. He also gave Damascus an ultimatum to retreat beyond Turkey’s observation posts placed on Syrian soil.
“We will not step back in Idlib. We are not the guests in this realm, we are the hosts,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a meeting of his AK party on Wednesday. Vowing to bring “the regime’s attacks” to an end, Erdogan said Ankara is giving Damascus time to pull forces back from Turkish observation posts.
The very next day, on the 27th, the Turkish English-language newspaper Yeni Safak bannered “Situation in Syria’s Idlib ‘in favor of Turkey’: Turkish president says Turkey has also reversed situation in Libya, which was previously in favor of Libyan warlord Haftar” and they reported that Erdogan saw signs that Turkey was introducing new international realities in both Syria and Libya.
Later on the 27th, RT headlined “33 Turkish soldiers confirmed killed in Idlib airstrike as Erdogan chairs emergency meeting on Syria” and reported that “Turkish officials attributed the strike to the Syrian military.” However, any Turkish retaliation against Syrian forces would not only be met by Russian defense of Syrian forces but would be clearly a Syrian response to Turkish aggression and therefore any U.S. involvement supporting Turkey in this matter would be America’s participating in Turkey’s blatantly illegal grab for Idlib. Even America’s allies in Europe and elsewhere might then turn away from the U.S., and away from Turkey.
This extraordinarily assertive position by Erdogan results from the sequence of events that will be described here:
U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. allies made unequivocally clear in late August and early September of 2018 that if Syria and Russia would try to restore Syrian Government control over Syria’s Idlib Province, then the U.S. and its allies would greatly escalate their war against Syria’s Government. For example, on 3 September 2018, Trump tweeted, “President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province. The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed.” South Front reported, the following day, that,
Trump’s tweet comes as Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the start of his visit to Damascus said that “terrorists must be purged” from the province and Idlib in its entirety must be returned under government control.
“Syria’s territorial integrity should be safeguarded and all tribes and groups, as one society, should start the reconstruction process, and the refugees should return to their homes,” Mr Zarif said.
Zarif met with President Assad and the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. They mostly discussed the expected September 7th summit, which will happen in Tehran. Russian, Turkish, Syrian and Iranian leaders are supposed to meet and discuss the situation in Idlib.
A statement from Assad’s office said that Iran and Syria “had similar views on the different issues” that are to be discussed.
On 10 September 2018, I wrote that “Unless Syria will simply hand its most heavily pro-jihadist province, Idlib, to adjoining Turkey, which claims to have 30,000 troops there and is planning to add 20,000 more,” there would be a war between NATO member Turkey, which has invaded there, versus Russia, which — at Syria’s request — has been assisting Syria’s Government to conquer all of Syria’s jihadists. Syria’s Army has gradually liberated and retaken most of Syria’s territory from jihadists, but had been using Idlib Province as a collection-area for the ones who were holding Syrian civilians as human shields. Syria was bussing into Idlib the tens of thousands of jihadists that surrendered. This was being done so as to minimize the numbers of civilians who would be killed when Syria’s army would retake an area, under Russian air-cover. This would allow the civilians there to escape to Syrian-Government-held territory, and the armed forces of Syria and Russia then to move in and slaughter the jihadists who remained there, so that Syria would retake that area from the U.S.-backed jihadists.
Then, seven days later, I headlined “Putin and Erdogan Plan Syria-Idlib DMZ as I Recommended”, and reported that,
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan jointly announced on September 17th in Tehran, “We’ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15-20km wide,” which compares to the Korean DMZ’s 4-km width.
Though the understanding that Erdogan had reached with Iran’s President Rouhani and with Russia’s President Putin was that this would be only a temporary measure in order to get the U.S. and its allies to cease threatening World War III if Syria and Russia promptly let loose and slaughtered the ‘rebels’ in Idlib (those being Americas’s previous main fighters to defeat and replace Syria’s Government), Erdogan soon presented clear indications that he actually wanted to seize Syrian territory and to get as much of it as he could — that his goal in Syria included expanding Turkey into Syria. His temporary policing function, as agreed-to by Russia, to isolate and not allow to escape the defeated jihadists who had become trapped there, turned out to be far more than that: it turned out to be Erdogan’s protection of those jihadists.
On September 25th of 2018, I had bannered “Turkey Now Controls Syria’s Jihadists”, and presented the historical background behind this. Then, on 14 July 2019, I headlined “Turkey Will Get a Chunk of Syria: An Advantage of Being in NATO”, and explained that because of NATO’s backing of Turkey’s seizure of Syrian territory, Turkey was already committed to the construction of Syrian branches of Turkey’s Gaziantep University and of Turkey’s Harran University, as well as of building supportive infrastructure for those facilities — absorbing portions of northern Syria into Turkey.
So, this has been a gradual process, and now Erdogan, backed by U.S.President Trump and by NATO, will be saving the lives of the tens of thousands of jihadists (plus their families) who had been defeated elsewhere in Syria, and who thus will avoid what the U.S. and its allies had warned would be a ‘humanitarian crisis’ of mass-slaughtering those defeated jihadists (which the U.S. and its allies still call ‘Syrian rebels’ — even though most of them aren’t even Syrian).
As I noted in the 14 July 2019 article:
At that time, just prior to the Tehran conference — and this was actually the reason why the conference was held — the U.S. and its allies, and the U.N., were demanding that an all-out invasion of Idlib, which had been planned by the Governments of Syria and of Russia, must not take place, for ‘humanitarian’ reasons. There was all that ‘humanitarian’ concern (led by the United States) for the world’s biggest concentration of Nusra and Nusra-led jihadists — and for Syria’s most jihadist-supporting civilian population. So much ‘kindness’, such ‘admirable’ ‘humanitarianism’. Furthermore the U.S. Government was threatening to greatly increase its forces against Syria if that invasion by Syria and by Russia into Idlib (which is, after all, part of Syria — so, what business is it, even of the U.N., at all?) were to be carried out. The Tehran conference was meeting in order to resolve that emergency situation (mainly America’s threats of a possible war against Russia), so as to forestall this attack.
Trump’s backing of Turkey’s aggression was taking the United States even deeper into his predecessor, Barack Obama’s, support of jihadists in order to overthrow Syria’s non-sectarian Government and install one that would be acceptable to the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family who own Saudi Arabia.
And now Erdogan again is threatening Russia with WW III if Russia continues to defend Syria’s sovereignty over Idlib — Syria’s most-jihadist province.
On February 26th, Yeni Safak bannered “Turkey will never compromise on Sochi deal for Syria, says Erdoğan”; so, Erdogan is openly threatening WW III if Russia and Syria resist Turkey’s seizure of Idlib and protection of its many thousands of jihadists.
Although the U.S. has led this apparent victory for jihadists and for international aggression, Turkey’s Erdogan has been its spearhead. Russia and Iran had not agreed to this. Certainly, Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, hadn’t agreed to anything like this outcome. Turkey, in its 10 September 2018 agreement with Russia and with Iran, had committed itself to separating-out and killing the jihadists; but, instead, Turkey has been protecting them, and now will be absorbing them, and taking Idlib Province from adjoining Syria. As recently as 22 October 2019, Erdogan had promised Putin in Sochi that “The two sides reiterate their commitment to the preservation of the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria,” and that, “They emphasize their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and to disrupt separatist agendas in the Syrian territory.” Yeni Safak’s February 26th article opened “Turkey will never compromise on the Sochi deal on embattled Idlib, Syria, and it expects the deal to be implemented, said the country’s president on Wednesday.” Turkey “expects the deal to be implemented” while blatantly violating it.
Brett McGurk, a leading neoconservative in the Administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, admitted, on 27 July 2017, that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11, tied directly to Ayman al-Zawahiri,” and that “to send in tens of thousands of tons of weapons and looking the other way as these foreign fighters come into Syria, may not have been the best approach,” but yet the U.S. regime continues that approach, and backs Turkey’s grab of Idlib and protection of those jihadists. Previously, McGurk had been U.S. President Barack Obama’s special envoy for the anti-Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) coalition. He had supported jihadists led by al-Nusra (Syrian branch of Al Qaeda) and supported separatist Kurds in Syria, to overthrow Syria’s Government. Even the liberal (or Democratic Party, pro-Obama) neoconservative Washington Post had not hidden the fact that “The U.S. team, headed by senior White House adviser Robert Malley and State Department envoy Brett McGurk” had informed the newspaper that “Russia was said to have rejected a U.S. proposal to leave Jabhat al-Nusra off-limits to bombing as part of a cease-fire” — the fact that Obama was actually protecting those jihadists (though not protecting ISIS or ‘ISIL’). Obama backed al-Qaeda there, and so does Trump. However, when Trump ran for the Presidency in 2016, he promised to reverse Obama’s obsession to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. That, and similar promises he made, were antithetical to the most-basic commitments of the U.S. Establishment. They became his implacable enemies.
Finally, on 10 November 2016, right after Trump’s election, that same newspaper, the WP, bannered “Obama directs Pentagon to target al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, one of the most formidable forces fighting Assad” and, without noting that Obama had supported that “al-Qaeda affiliate” until then, but instead falsely reporting that “the administration had largely ignored until now” it, said: “While Obama, White House national security adviser Susan E. Rice, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and special presidential envoy Brett McGurk agreed with [the super-neoconservative Obama Secretary of Defense Ashton] Carter on the need to keep the focus on the Islamic State, they favored shifting resources to try to prevent al-Nusra from becoming a bigger threat down the road.” That was extreme euphemism, coming from this extremely neoconservative liberal newspaper. Actually, Obama had built his overthrow-Assad operation mainly upon al-Nusra, to train and lead the tens of thousands of foreign jihadists who had been pouring into Syria. The Washington Post was one of the most lying, deceptive, newspapers reporting anywhere in the world about international relations, very heavily slanted neoconservative — in favor of expanding the U.S. mega-corporate empire. Whereas the separatist Kurds were America’s main proxy-army fighting in Syria’s northeast, al-Nusra led America’s proxy-armies everywhere else in Syria. That 10 November 2016 WP article also asserted “But aides say Obama grew frustrated that more wasn’t being done by the Pentagon and the intelligence community to kill al-Nusra leaders given the warnings he had received from top counterterrorism officials about the gathering threat they posed.” That’s another lie, because Secretary of State John Kerry had actually fought inside the Administration against Obama’s policy on that, and the policy came from Obama himself — and NOT from his subordinates (such as Ashton Carter), as that lying newspaper alleged. The article referred to “the expanded push against al-Nusra” — but here is the reality: by no later than December 2012 Obama had settled upon al-Nusra to lead America’s overthrow-Assad campaign inside Syria. And the reason for that has very deep historical roots — all hidden from the American public. Instead of such realism, that propaganda-organ, in its article on 10 November 2016, wrote:
A bitterly divided Obama administration had tried over the summer to cut a deal with Moscow on a joint U.S.-Russian air campaign against al-Nusra, in exchange for a Russian commitment to ground Syrian government warplanes and to allow more humanitarian supplies into besieged areas. But the negotiations broke down in acrimony, with Moscow accusing the United States of failing to separate al-Nusra from more moderate rebel groups and Washington accusing the Russians of war crimes in Aleppo.
‘Humanitarian’. How stupid does the owner of the Washington Post think that the American public is in order for it still to believe that its Government really cares about being “humanitarian” around the world — especially in countries it’s trying to conquer, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia …? Really? He thinks it’s that stupid? Or, does he think his newspaper can help to make them so misinformed?
That rabidly anti-Russian newspaper continued there:
Russia had accused the United States of sheltering al-Nusra, a charge repeated Thursday in Moscow by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
“The president doesn’t want this group to be what inherits the country if Assad ever does fall,” a senior U.S. official said. “This cannot be the viable Syrian opposition. It’s al-Qaeda.”
Officials said the administration’s hope is that more-moderate rebel factions will be able to gain ground as both the Islamic State and al-Nusra come under increased military pressure.
The article also featured a headline and link to their 9 November 2016 news-story, “Intelligence community is already feeling a sense of dread about Trump”. Even back then, the Democratic Party’s billionaires were pumping their agents’ allegations which would lead to Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and ultimately to Ukrainegate and Trump’s impeachment for being insufficiently supportive of President Obama’s 2014 coup and conquest of Ukraine, which Obama had started planning by no later than 2011. All of that was a warning to any current or future U.S. President, that to buck the collective will of America’s billionaires is to commit political suicide. It doesn’t make any difference what the President’s Party is — the dictate, from the billionaires, applies to any U.S. President. This ‘restored Cold War’ is nothing of the sort — on the U.S. side, the war secretly continued uninterrupted, even after the Soviet Union ended its communism, and its Warsaw-Pact mirror of America’s NATO military alliance.
UPDATE: On February 28th, the German Government news-agency Deutsche Welle (DW) bannered “Idlib: ‘I’d rather suffer bombs than Assad’” and provided an extensive interview by telephone with someone in Idlib who says that she supports democracy and tolerance of all religions and is determined to overthrow the present Government of Syria. If her pro-democracy, anti-jihadist, allegations are honest, then she is an extraordinary exception for Idlib, as has been documented by the periodic polls that the British polling firm Orb International took throughout Syria and reported during 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2018. For examples:
In the 2014 report (page 12) only 4% of the people sampled in Idlib said that they supported “The Assad Government.” This was far lower than the percentages in any other Syrian province. 52% supported either “armed opposition” or “Violent religious extremist groups.” This was far higher than in any other province except ISIS-controlled Raqqah, where it was 59%.
In the 2015 report (page 7), 35% of the people sampled in Idlib said that al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) was a “Completely positive influence”; an additional 35% said it was a “Somewhat positive influence.” That 70% support for al-Qaeda was by far the highest found in any of Syria’s provinces.
If the person who was at the other end of that DW phone-call was authentic, then she was anything but representative of the people in Idlib.
At around 10 AM Eastern time in the U.S. on the 28th, Turkey’s Daily Sabah newspaper headlined “Erdoğan and Putin may meet next week, Kremlin says”, and reported that “Erdoğan and Putin spoke over the phone Friday to try to defuse tensions that rose significantly in northwestern Syria after 33 Turkish troops were killed in a Syrian regime airstrike.” Either Erdogan is trying to find a face-saving way out of his huge gamble, or Putin is trying to prevent WW III, or both. An hour later, that newspaper bannered “Turkey determined to remove Assad regime from Syria’s Idlib, Erdoğan tells Trump.” Why is it that a country can proudly proclaim in a headline that it will commit international aggression in blatant violation of international law and yet not be roundly damned by the publics in all countries for doing such a vile thing?
At around noon, U.S. Eastern time, on the 28th, Turkey’s TRT World bannered “NATO and the West’s dereliction of duty in Syria and Turkey” and opened: “If the West and NATO continue on the path they have chosen, it will allow Vladimir Putin to reshape the post-Soviet world order in his image.” After trying to scare Europe’s leaders by threatening to overwhelm them with maybe hundreds of thousands of released jihadists who have been basically penned-up in Idlib, Erdogan was trying to appeal to those leaders’ obligations to NATO, America’s anti-Russian military alliance.
At around 1:30 PM U.S. Eastern time on the 28th, Britain’s Guardian headlined “Nato expresses ‘full solidarity’ with Turkey over Syria airstrikes” but NATO chief “Stoltenberg offered no immediate promise of assistance to Turkey,” and the article went on to report that the UK and five of its allies would bring the matter to the U.N. Security Council on Friday night (where Turkey’s demands would even more certainly go nowhere). The reality of Stoltenberg’s statement (which had been issued at 12:33 Eastern time) was a total humiliation to Erdogan’s fantasies that because of his country’s NATO membership he could get the U.S. to invade Russia. Stoltenberg gave the standard NATO hate-talk against Russia and its allies, however, saying that “Allies condemn the continued indiscriminate air strikes by the Syrian regime and its backer Russia in Idlib province.” Even when a NATO member engages in clear-cut foreign aggression in violation of the U.N. Charter’s prohibiton against that, and explicitly violating the International Criminal Court’s “Crime of Aggression”, NATO will spew its standard hate-propaganda against the countries that were and are victims of that blatantly illegal aggression by the NATO member-country. Notwithstanding NATO’s sometimes diplomatic language, it is — after Russia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991 — basically an extremely dangerous militarized hate-organization, of which every one of its member-nations should be profoundly embarrassed to belong.
—————
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


Keir Starmer

Keir Starmer , appears to be the new head of the new new new Labour .
He is not only @ @ @ @ @ CPS when Assange was arrested & jailed But also when the CPS issued its bizarre @ @ @ @ @ Hate Crime .
This shows the Socialists still preparing for Government supported by the Socialist @ @ @ @ @ Cities .
Opposition to the world wide 5G weapons grade Radiation network & Genocide grid @ @ @ @ @ Most other media stories appear to be diversions .
Non technical people are unaware that @ @ @ @ @ Radiation Death chamber .
And targeted assassination tool .

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.
Keir Starmer, appears to be the new head of the new new new Labour.
He is not only credited with being in the CPS when Assange was arrested & jailed
But also when the CPS issued its bizarre insane “Guidance” on Hate Crime.
This shows the Socialists still preparing for Government supported by the Socialist Civil Service & their Sanctuary Cities.
Opposition to the world wide 5G weapons grade Radiation network & Genocide grid is still non existent.
Most other media stories appear to be diversions.
Non technical people are unaware that the 5G Grid is a Radiation Death chamber. And targeted assassination tool.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-03-02--Racism in UK: Debate Reaches New Height of Farce as Liberals Score Victory Over Laurence Fox

Authored by Martin Jay via The Strategic Culture Foundation : I often ask myself how did Boris Johnson become PM of Britain , as I for one , don ’ t believe it ’ s entirely to do with Brexit , but more to do with a broader protest vote from a big part of the UK population who voted him in to redress the balance of PC madness which is threatening to destroy the country .
This great democracy , which many look up to as a beacon in the world , has advanced so far down the politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumption that free speech itself should come with caveats which protect those which might be ‘ affected ’ by it , that white males are losing the right and even the ability to debate .
I generally want to throw something at my 20 year old Samsung plasma ( which is about 15cm in width ) the moment I hear after a TV show on the BBC the gentle voice which asks “ have you been affected by this program ?
” .
The decline in politics as a subject of common interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on social media which overshadows raw news reporting and the incomprehensible guilt complex about Britain ’ s colonial history all combine to feed , if not sustain , a new mantra incubated in Britain ’ s debating forums : white people should keep quiet and listen to the thumb-sucking liberals and their two-faced moral tutelage , based on simply them being the victim class .
This new space is accommodated by anyone who feels that not being white , male and employed is in itself is a handicap to function in society and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an artificial-assisted narrative which should be given greater prominence – regardless of how ill-informed , biased , idiotic it may be , like only allowing alcoholics an opinion on drinking .
Britain ’ s multiculturalism is being threatened by these new ‘ victims ’ and the left wing British media ’ s obsession to promote their cause at any cost .
Even ‘ conservatives ’ lend them some sympathy as we have got to the stage in Britain where more and more white people feel they don ’ t have the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjects and so have started to remain mute – which in itself gives further impetus to the loony left who drown in their own excreta of bigotry and hatred of everything which was once considered ‘ great ’ about Great Britain .
The irony of course that often these people have been given prominence in British society by its multiculturalism and its loathing of discrimination , which they would not get in France or Germany .
Or in the US for that matter .
This group , which claims to be anti fascist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself which aims to achieve everything that Hitler , Mussolini or even Oswald Mosley would hope to achieve .
The same group , hilariously , sees the EU as a kind of multicultural organisation which is there as an antithesis to fascism – without even bothering to check how the European Commission in Brussels doesn ’ t even employ 1 % of its staff from brown skinned ranks and that its absolute determination to grab more power from voters is actually fuelling a far-right presence in the European parliament which is breaking all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ madness has reached new levels of absurdity , as an on line army of self-righteous activists have managed to establish a protocol of shaming anyone with an opinion .
On anything which doesn ’ t chime with theirs .
And the well organised gang bang on twitter puts the boot in far better than any Kristallnacht White men are not allowed to talk or write about feminism without a unruly backlash ; the same goes for colonial history , slavery and of course Brexit .
The bigoted Left have stigmatised the word itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist , anachronistic , colonial ’ .
The vortex of banality is the subject of race itself which as we have seen recently with the Laurence Fox debacle , is a subject which the Left have convinced us all that white males are not qualified to talk about – that when they do , we are led to believe that talking about race , is an act of racism itself .
Fox just recently left Twitter following his BBC talk show spat where he was accused to being “ racist ” for really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more horrific than dare to have an opinion on the subject but to actually speak common sense on it .
The horror .
The horror .
How dare a white Englishman say “ booh ” to the lies being spread by the Left about Meghan being hounded out of Britain because of her skin colour ?
We should be worried about Fox stepping away from Twitter ?
The race debate has been dominated to such an extent by left wing ‘ victims ’ that we have reached a point of preposterousness where white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject itself .
Yet this absurdity is championed by the Left ’ s acolytes – often people who are victims of being neither white nor male and who have profiteered by positive discrimination – such as Kuba Shand-Baptiste who recently had a tantrum on twitter with me for simply having the audacity to pitch her an opinion piece on the subject of race .
The black comment editor , it would seem , writes almost entirely about race and racism .
And so , naturally , I pitched to her in preference to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spasm of misplaced antagonistic replies came before being blocked by the lady who took great acceptation to the idea of a white make journalist writing about racism in Britain .
Yet her anger wasn ’ t real .
It couldn ’ t be as there was nothing really to get angry about .
And herein lies the crux of what is wrong about the Left ’ s possession of these prickly subjects : their hue and cry is fake and they will go to any lengths to protect their own incomes and raison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of these subjects .
Shand-Baptiste wasn ’ t angry with me at all .
She faked it so as to justify not replying to my pitch for an article on the subject , which I assume she does on a regular basis .
And who could blame her ?
After all , what would the Shand-Baptistes do in Britain if white males were able to promote their own ideas about racism in Britain ?
The answer is they ’ d be out of a job , even with the vociferous positive discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post for that matter ) applies on its comment desk .
If more celebrities like Laurence Fox were freely able to tweet his views about racism and how the subject has been hijacked by people like Shande-Baptiste then perhaps others would think more about the irony of a black journalist enjoying the privilege of an elitist job in Britain , writing about mainly her cause .
Talk about low hanging fruit .
And what irony .
She doesn ’ t like Laurence Fox nor his opinions as she , in her column , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ sliding bigotry ” in a media landscape which she believes has airbrushed out the “ marginalised ” ( black , Asian , Muslim , handicapped , lesbian etc ) , simply because one popular talk show was recently axed .
It escapes her that the popular PC view championed by the Left doesn ’ t have to be necessarily fronted by black people on TV debates each night .
Plenty of white folk carry the ‘ victim ’ torch on their behalf which is why we are in the position today where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter account .
Fox appears to be a proponent of free speech and would probably die for Shande-Baptiste ’ s right to exercise it .
I doubt if this would work the other way around as the black race commentator appears to burst into tears when a white male pitches a piece to her about racism .
But her argument is flawed and churlish at best .
On the one hand she claims that there is no real representation of ‘ marginal ’ voices ( black ) but then admits later in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls from producers to appear on such debates herself .
Speaking on behalf of the entire black community in the UK , she gushes “ we either defend our rights and get screamed at , or we “ go high ” and embrace , sometimes physically , the people who attack us .
No wonder some of us just don ’ t want to get involved ” .
That hilarious if not invincible defeatism is the heart of the matter .
Black commentators when challenged in the public debate are finding it harder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is probably one of the least racist , multicultural countries in the world which gives black people opportunities .
Indeed , the commentators ’ journalistic career before becoming Oped editor at the Independent in 2018 appears to be pretty unremarkable , to say the least and many might argue that positive discrimination has placed her in a top job there .
Is it an insecurity pang from her then that to continue to carry off the work of a respected journalist that racism needs to be a subject which is dominated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if so , then why not let the truly marginalised take it , rather than those who preach about poverty from ivory towers ?
The so-called liberal in the UK which Fox chooses to attack do not like being the subject of debate as people might look too closely at their theatre props and see a different story .
Fox being threatened with death threats by such ‘ marginals ’ who don ’ t want anyone else to debate the issue of race is symptomatic of an advanced multicultural country which is confused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its colonial history .
The PC cavalcade of those who wish to destroy all debate by white males in Britain is very much why and how Boris took the top job .
But we should be very worried about Laurence Fox leaving Twitter as it is a victory for “ black ” commentators like Shande-Baptiste who goes cold all over when she sees a white male talk about her favourite subject .

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 Martin Jay via The Strategic Culture Foundation:
I often ask myself how did Boris Johnson become PM of Britain, as I for one, don’t believe it’s entirely to do with Brexit, but more to do with a broader protest vote from a big part of the UK population who voted him in to redress the balance of PC madness which is threatening to destroy the country.
This great democracy, which many look up to as a beacon in the world, has advanced so far down the politically correct road, based on the erroneous assumption that free speech itself should come with caveats which protect those which might be ‘affected’ by it, that white males are losing the right and even the ability to debate.
I generally want to throw something at my 20 year old Samsung plasma (which is about 15cm in width) the moment I hear after a TV show on the BBC the gentle voice which asks “have you been affected by this program?”.
The decline in politics as a subject of common interest, the advancement of ‘comment’ on social media which overshadows raw news reporting and the incomprehensible guilt complex about Britain’s colonial history all combine to feed, if not sustain, a new mantra incubated in Britain’s debating forums: white people should keep quiet and listen to the thumb-sucking liberals and their two-faced moral tutelage, based on simply them being the victim class.
This new space is accommodated by anyone who feels that not being white, male and employed is in itself is a handicap to function in society and therefore, by definition, is entitled to an artificial-assisted narrative which should be given greater prominence – regardless of how ill-informed, biased, idiotic it may be, like only allowing alcoholics an opinion on drinking.
Britain’s multiculturalism is being threatened by these new ‘victims’ and the left wing British media’s obsession to promote their cause at any cost. Even ‘conservatives’ lend them some sympathy as we have got to the stage in Britain where more and more white people feel they don’t have the right to talk about any number of incendiary subjects and so have started to remain mute – which in itself gives further impetus to the loony left who drown in their own excreta of bigotry and hatred of everything which was once considered ‘great’ about Great Britain. The irony of course that often these people have been given prominence in British society by its multiculturalism and its loathing of discrimination, which they would not get in France or Germany. Or in the US for that matter.
This group, which claims to be anti fascist, is actually becoming a movement in itself which aims to achieve everything that Hitler, Mussolini or even Oswald Mosley would hope to achieve. The same group, hilariously, sees the EU as a kind of multicultural organisation which is there as an antithesis to fascism – without even bothering to check how the European Commission in Brussels doesn’t even employ 1% of its staff from brown skinned ranks and that its absolute determination to grab more power from voters is actually fuelling a far-right presence in the European parliament which is breaking all records.
In Britain, this Orwellian madness has reached new levels of absurdity, as an on line army of self-righteous activists have managed to establish a protocol of shaming anyone with an opinion. On anything which doesn’t chime with theirs. And the well organised gang bang on twitter puts the boot in far better than any Kristallnacht
White men are not allowed to talk or write about feminism without a unruly backlash; the same goes for colonial history, slavery and of course Brexit. The bigoted Left have stigmatised the word itself ‘Brexit’ to automatically mean ‘racist, anachronistic, colonial’.
The vortex of banality is the subject of race itself which as we have seen recently with the Laurence Fox debacle, is a subject which the Left have convinced us all that white males are not qualified to talk about – that when they do, we are led to believe that talking about race, is an act of racism itself.
Fox just recently left Twitter following his BBC talk show spat where he was accused to being “racist” for really having the nerve to do something even more horrific than dare to have an opinion on the subject but to actually speak common sense on it. The horror. The horror. How dare a white Englishman say “booh” to the lies being spread by the Left about Meghan being hounded out of Britain because of her skin colour?
We should be worried about Fox stepping away from Twitter?
The race debate has been dominated to such an extent by left wing ‘victims’ that we have reached a point of preposterousness where white people can’t even debate the subject itself.
Yet this absurdity is championed by the Left’s acolytes – often people who are victims of being neither white nor male and who have profiteered by positive discrimination – such as Kuba Shand-Baptiste who recently had a tantrum on twitter with me for simply having the audacity to pitch her an opinion piece on the subject of race.
The black comment editor, it would seem, writes almost entirely about race and racism. And so, naturally, I pitched to her in preference to her colleagues. But within seconds a spasm of misplaced antagonistic replies came before being blocked by the lady who took great acceptation to the idea of a white make journalist writing about racism in Britain.
Yet her anger wasn’t real. It couldn’t be as there was nothing really to get angry about. And herein lies the crux of what is wrong about the Left’s possession of these prickly subjects: their hue and cry is fake and they will go to any lengths to protect their own incomes and raison d’etre which derive from taking control of these subjects.
Shand-Baptiste wasn’t angry with me at all. She faked it so as to justify not replying to my pitch for an article on the subject, which I assume she does on a regular basis.
And who could blame her? After all, what would the Shand-Baptistes do in Britain if white males were able to promote their own ideas about racism in Britain? The answer is they’d be out of a job, even with the vociferous positive discrimination which the Indie (and the Washington Post for that matter) applies on its comment desk. If more celebrities like Laurence Fox were freely able to tweet his views about racism and how the subject has been hijacked by people like Shande-Baptiste then perhaps others would think more about the irony of a black journalist enjoying the privilege of an elitist job in Britain, writing about mainly her cause. Talk about low hanging fruit. And what irony.
She doesn’t like Laurence Fox nor his opinions as she, in her column, associates white males’ opinions to a “sliding bigotry” in a media landscape which she believes has airbrushed out the “marginalised” (black, Asian, Muslim, handicapped, lesbian etc), simply because one popular talk show was recently axed. It escapes her that the popular PC view championed by the Left doesn’t have to be necessarily fronted by black people on TV debates each night. Plenty of white folk carry the ‘victim’ torch on their behalf which is why we are in the position today where someone like Fox has to close his Twitter account. Fox appears to be a proponent of free speech and would probably die for Shande-Baptiste’s right to exercise it. I doubt if this would work the other way around as the black race commentator appears to burst into tears when a white male pitches a piece to her about racism. But her argument is flawed and churlish at best. On the one hand she claims that there is no real representation of ‘marginal’ voices (black) but then admits later in the piece that she has stopped taking the calls from producers to appear on such debates herself. Speaking on behalf of the entire black community in the UK, she gushes “ we either defend our rights and get screamed at, or we “go high” and embrace, sometimes physically, the people who attack us. No wonder some of us just don’t want to get involved”.
That hilarious if not invincible defeatism is the heart of the matter. Black commentators when challenged in the public debate are finding it harder to defend their corner in a country which is probably one of the least racist, multicultural countries in the world which gives black people opportunities. Indeed, the commentators’ journalistic career before becoming Oped editor at the Independent in 2018 appears to be pretty unremarkable, to say the least and many might argue that positive discrimination has placed her in a top job there. Is it an insecurity pang from her then that to continue to carry off the work of a respected journalist that racism needs to be a subject which is dominated by such ‘marginalised’ people? And if so, then why not let the truly marginalised take it, rather than those who preach about poverty from ivory towers?
The so-called liberal in the UK which Fox chooses to attack do not like being the subject of debate as people might look too closely at their theatre props and see a different story. Fox being threatened with death threats by such ‘marginals’ who don’t want anyone else to debate the issue of race is symptomatic of an advanced multicultural country which is confused at best and bewildered at worst by its colonial history. The PC cavalcade of those who wish to destroy all debate by white males in Britain is very much why and how Boris took the top job. But we should be very worried about Laurence Fox leaving Twitter as it is a victory for “black” commentators like Shande-Baptiste who goes cold all over when she sees a white male talk about her favourite subject.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-03-02--Trump says Buttigieg dropping out of Democratic race is plot to ‘take Sanders out of play’

Reacting to reports of Pete Buttigieg ending his presidential bid , US President Donald Trump said this is the “ real beginning ” of a ploy by the Democrats to get rid of their frontrunner , Bernie Sanders .
Taking to Twitter on Sunday evening , Trump said the wheels have been set in motion for the establishment Democrats to stop Sanders ’ nomination dead in its tracks .
The former South Bend , Indiana mayor ’ s decision to end his bid was unexpected , coming just two days ahead of Super Tuesday , when Democrats in 14 states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nominee .
While Buttigieg ’ s campaign lost some momentum after his stunning , though controversial , victory in Iowa ( where he butted heads with Sanders ) , and his strong showing in New Hampshire ( where he narrowly lost to Sanders ) , he managed to finish in the top four in the South Carolina primary on Saturday .
This is not the first time Trump has accused the Democratic Party of attempting to rob Sanders of his chance to challenge him in the 2020 presidential election , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of 2016 , which was heavily skewed in Hillary Clinton ’ s favor .
Back then , Sanders , who was riding a wave of popular support , lost to Clinton , whose campaign worked with the Democratic National Committee to secure her nomination behind Sanders ’ back .

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.
Via RT…
Reacting to reports of Pete Buttigieg ending his presidential bid, US President Donald Trump said this is the “real beginning” of a ploy by the Democrats to get rid of their frontrunner, Bernie Sanders.
Taking to Twitter on Sunday evening, Trump said the wheels have been set in motion for the establishment Democrats to stop Sanders’ nomination dead in its tracks.
“Pete Buttigieg is OUT. All of his SuperTuesday votes will go to Sleepy Joe Biden. Great timing. This is the REAL beginning of the Dems taking Bernie out of play – NO NOMINATION, AGAIN!”
Pete Buttigieg is OUT. All of his SuperTuesday votes will go to Sleepy Joe Biden. Great timing. This is the REAL beginning of the Dems taking Bernie out of play – NO NOMINATION, AGAIN! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2020
The former South Bend, Indiana mayor’s decision to end his bid was unexpected, coming just two days ahead of Super Tuesday, when Democrats in 14 states will cast their ballots for the party’s nominee.
While Buttigieg’s campaign lost some momentum after his stunning, though controversial, victory in Iowa (where he butted heads with Sanders), and his strong showing in New Hampshire (where he narrowly lost to Sanders), he managed to finish in the top four in the South Carolina primary on Saturday.
This is not the first time Trump has accused the Democratic Party of attempting to rob Sanders of his chance to challenge him in the 2020 presidential election, while comparing the current Democratic nomination saga to that of 2016, which was heavily skewed in Hillary Clinton’s favor.
Back then, Sanders, who was riding a wave of popular support, lost to Clinton, whose campaign worked with the Democratic National Committee to secure her nomination behind Sanders’ back.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report