theduran--2020-02-22--Is Trump Being Set Up in Afghanistan? Rigged to fail Peace Talks, Elections, Strategy?

02/22/20 – Having read the op-ed by Sirajuddin Haqqani in the New York Times on Feb. 20 , 2020 , I found myself feeling uneasy .
I am familiar with the Haqqani family as I enjoyed their protection and I was a guest in their house in Peshawar right after a prisoner swap with the Soviets that took place in Peshawar in the summer of 1988 .
I stumbled into it through Carlos Mavroleon who was working for the Haqqani family under the name of Kareemullah .
Somewhere , I have a picture of one of Sirajuddin ’ s older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
He was later killed in a US drone strike .
Carlos , aka Kareemullah , was working for the family as part of a security unit that protected opium shipments as they approached the Pakistani border .
He spoke Pashto so fluently , no one knew that he wasn ’ t an Afghan , except myself .
I knew Carlos from his days in New York .
While all of us were there to fight to liberate Afghanistan , none of us were angels .
We had all made some kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Carllos ’ deal was for redemption , mine was for real knowledge .
Kareemulah and I talked straight through the night catching up until just before sunrise and morning prayer .
We were at the Haqqani compound in University Town , a district of Peshawar .
After prayer , we sat and talked more .
Both of us wondered if the Soviets were really going to pull out of Afghanistan after 10 years as Mr. Gobachev had stated .
I asked many questions about various contingencies and the pointless negotiations .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jelaluldin Haqqani ran the family .
They were part of the Hezbi i Islami organization under Younas Khalis which had broken away from Gul Buddin Heckmatyer .
They were a serious fighting organization and operated with some independence from other groups .
Because of the tight family , clan and tribal nature of the organization , they were , in many ways , a kind of mafia/political/militia hybrid .
They were more independent from the ISI or the CIA because they made money from the early opium trade .
They also made money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Red Army .
But they did not wear their independence as a badge the way Heckmatyer pretended to .
They were well acquainted with the idea of telling players what they wanted to hear .
So STATE carried them as a “ moderate ” faction .
They were anything but… What I learned , among other things , was that the Haqqanis had a firm position that was in no way negotiable .
They would fight to the death any foreign army that entered Afghanistan .
Calling them Islamic fanatics is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived by the Afghan codes of honor called “ Pashtunwali ” .
It has different rules than we , in the West , claim to live by .
They did not feel honor bound to keep any promises made to an enemy and war was to be a no quarter given or expected fight .
If they took prisoners , it was for interrogation , as hostages , sources of revenue , or , as they would never admit , as sex toys .
( That was and is NOT Islamic ; but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While they could be quite gentle with young family members , God help you in a fight with them .
As a foreigner , I was very fortunate to be trusted by them .
I knew that if I were in any way to act suspicious , they would unflinchingly dispatch me .
Instead , they extended a very prideful Islamic hospitality which was a bit more formal than most similar situations I experienced .
Hospitality seemed more of an obligation and they were very concerned that I saw them as family people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of a performance of Haqqani style public diplomacy theater and it left me feeling a little awkward .
They showed me the room in which the Soviet prisoner had been kept .
They walls were covered with a demented charcoal mural he had left behind .
I was only allowed a glimpse of it and they refused to let me take a picture .
Too bad , it was a tortured master piece .
Why they showed it to me in the first place was a subject of its own .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subtlety or nuance .
While they were interested in attaining power , one didn ’ t expect them to turn out any statesmen .
But they knew how to play… So when I read this curious op-ed by this youngest Haqqani , it didn ’ t pass the smell test .
It didn ’ t read like a fighting Haqqani actually wrote it .
Rural Pashtun people neither talk nor write , or think like this .
It just does not come across as real .
Given that jezail.org is skeptical about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming in a few days , this is ringing some alarms .
The language is not genuine .
For example , no Pashtun uses terms like “ front-loads this process ” .
“ Keeping the international community interested and positively engaged during the transition to peace ” is a term more likely to come from Zalmay Khalilzad than from somebody who carries a Kalashnikov for a living .
“ Crucial to stabilizing and developing Afghanistan ” ?
“ Mutual respect ” ?
The entire document from roughly the third paragraph , reads as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whole paragraphs appear to be stripped in .
What jezail.org is concerned about is that Zalmay Khalilzad may be purchasing some statements from Afghans who can not be bought but can be rented .
This is an old pattern of US diplomacy in the region and is where truckloads of American money has disappeared .
This is happening at the same time as other pieces are in motion .
The Afghan election has been a giant let down again with the results taking five months closer to the US presidential election to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections , jezail.org was not alone in knowing the outcome from before the election .
But they waited .
Other pieces are in motion too .
Pakistani “ cooperation ” in the WOT has long been a game played by Pakistan jailing it ’ s terrorists at key moments to get US concessions or cool down heated periods between the US and Pakistan .
Predictably , they just threw Hafiz Saeed in jail again for terror financing .
He was a key player in the Mumbai attack .
He ’ s been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it .
They might usefully put a revolving door on his cell .
We ’ ve been down this road so many times before .
They gave up so many “ terrorists ” who keep turning out to be living in Pakistan for some reason .
Omar , Bin Laden , KSM and on and on .
A lot of prestige is going into this “ peace agreement ” .
Trump is lining up behind it .
His cabinet is lined up with it .
His lead negotiator is also the biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khalilzad .
He is from the Robin Raphel school of diplomacy .
Spend loads of many , make claims of false gains and deny spectacular failures .
It ’ s like checking boxes on a form for these people .
They see “ gains ” and “ successes ” in the last 20 years of American wallowing in Afghanistan .
“ Look what we ’ re doing for women !
” “ Look what we ’ re doing for democracy !
” “ Look what we ’ re doing to fight terror !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal .
Zalmay has been at it for over 3 decades .
When you get good at failure , you probably can get your timing pretty tight .
What appears to be in play is a “ peace talk ” that no party to it takes seriously .
The Taliban are not going to give any concessions on the sticking points of keeping US CT ( counter terror ) units in Afghanistan or enshrining any form of women ’ s rights that we would recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree to do whatever they can as long as it conforms to their interpretation of Islam .
In the real world , that is called a loop hole .
It ’ s about ten miles wide .
On keeping CT forces in Afghanistan , it ’ s already being leaked that there are secret “ annexes ” in the agreement that will allow for this .
Really ?
Why were they leaked ?
This is being set up to fail .
It ’ s an old game .
STATE has been doing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reads this right , it will fail catastrophically just before the election .
There will be a bombing in Kabul or something dramatic .
Jezail.org is not alone in our misgivings about this “ process ” in Doha .
So we include this video from journalist Shekhar Gupta who is also skeptical about a series of event he sees as being linked .
It ’ s a slightly different from what we see but it rhymes .
Regards to All , jezail.org on the web and jezail.org on FaceBook We meant to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just policies

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.
02/22/20 – Having read the op-ed by Sirajuddin Haqqani in the New York Times on Feb. 20, 2020, I found myself feeling uneasy. I am familiar with the Haqqani family as I enjoyed their protection and I was a guest in their house in Peshawar right after a prisoner swap with the Soviets that took place in Peshawar in the summer of 1988. I stumbled into it through Carlos Mavroleon who was working for the Haqqani family under the name of Kareemullah. Somewhere, I have a picture of one of Sirajuddin’s older brothers who was a toddler at the time. He was later killed in a US drone strike. Carlos, aka Kareemullah, was working for the family as part of a security unit that protected opium shipments as they approached the Pakistani border. He spoke Pashto so fluently, no one knew that he wasn’t an Afghan, except myself. I knew Carlos from his days in New York. While all of us were there to fight to liberate Afghanistan, none of us were angels. We had all made some kind of a Mephisto bargain to be there. Carllos’ deal was for redemption, mine was for real knowledge.
Kareemulah and I talked straight through the night catching up until just before sunrise and morning prayer. We were at the Haqqani compound in University Town, a district of Peshawar. After prayer, we sat and talked more. Both of us wondered if the Soviets were really going to pull out of Afghanistan after 10 years as Mr. Gobachev had stated. I asked many questions about various contingencies and the pointless negotiations. At that time, the Old Man, Jelaluldin Haqqani ran the family. They were part of the Hezbi i Islami organization under Younas Khalis which had broken away from Gul Buddin Heckmatyer. They were a serious fighting organization and operated with some independence from other groups. Because of the tight family, clan and tribal nature of the organization, they were, in many ways, a kind of mafia/political/militia hybrid. They were more independent from the ISI or the CIA because they made money from the early opium trade. They also made money from selling captured Soviet officers back to the Red Army. But they did not wear their independence as a badge the way Heckmatyer pretended to. They were well acquainted with the idea of telling players what they wanted to hear. So STATE carried them as a “moderate” faction. They were anything but…
What I learned, among other things, was that the Haqqanis had a firm position that was in no way negotiable. They would fight to the death any foreign army that entered Afghanistan. Calling them Islamic fanatics is a compliment by them. But they also lived by the Afghan codes of honor called “Pashtunwali”. It has different rules than we, in the West, claim to live by. They did not feel honor bound to keep any promises made to an enemy and war was to be a no quarter given or expected fight. If they took prisoners, it was for interrogation, as hostages, sources of revenue, or, as they would never admit, as sex toys. (That was and is NOT Islamic; but it happens all the time.) While they could be quite gentle with young family members, God help you in a fight with them. As a foreigner, I was very fortunate to be trusted by them. I knew that if I were in any way to act suspicious, they would unflinchingly dispatch me. Instead, they extended a very prideful Islamic hospitality which was a bit more formal than most similar situations I experienced. Hospitality seemed more of an obligation and they were very concerned that I saw them as family people as well as fighters. It was kind of a performance of Haqqani style public diplomacy theater and it left me feeling a little awkward. They showed me the room in which the Soviet prisoner had been kept. They walls were covered with a demented charcoal mural he had left behind. I was only allowed a glimpse of it and they refused to let me take a picture. Too bad, it was a tortured master piece. Why they showed it to me in the first place was a subject of its own. The Haqqanis I met were not people of subtlety or nuance. While they were interested in attaining power, one didn’t expect them to turn out any statesmen. But they knew how to play…
So when I read this curious op-ed by this youngest Haqqani, it didn’t pass the smell test. It didn’t read like a fighting Haqqani actually wrote it. Rural Pashtun people neither talk nor write, or think like this. It just does not come across as real. Given that jezail.org is skeptical about the peace deal that is supposed to be coming in a few days, this is ringing some alarms. The language is not genuine. For example, no Pashtun uses terms like “front-loads this process”. “Keeping the international community interested and positively engaged during the transition to peace” is a term more likely to come from Zalmay Khalilzad than from somebody who carries a Kalashnikov for a living. “Crucial to stabilizing and developing Afghanistan”? “Mutual respect”? The entire document from roughly the third paragraph, reads as if were written by a different people. Whole paragraphs appear to be stripped in.
What jezail.org is concerned about is that Zalmay Khalilzad may be purchasing some statements from Afghans who cannot be bought but can be rented. This is an old pattern of US diplomacy in the region and is where truckloads of American money has disappeared. This is happening at the same time as other pieces are in motion. The Afghan election has been a giant let down again with the results taking five months closer to the US presidential election to be announced. After 2 previous rigged elections, jezail.org was not alone in knowing the outcome from before the election. But they waited. Other pieces are in motion too.
Pakistani “cooperation” in the WOT has long been a game played by Pakistan jailing it’s terrorists at key moments to get US concessions or cool down heated periods between the US and Pakistan. Predictably, they just threw Hafiz Saeed in jail again for terror financing. He was a key player in the Mumbai attack. He’s been in jail before and he’s used to it. They might usefully put a revolving door on his cell. We’ve been down this road so many times before. They gave up so many “terrorists” who keep turning out to be living in Pakistan for some reason. Omar, Bin Laden, KSM and on and on.
A lot of prestige is going into this “peace agreement”. Trump is lining up behind it. His cabinet is lined up with it. His lead negotiator is also the biggest loser in South Asian diplomacy, Zalmay Khalilzad. He is from the Robin Raphel school of diplomacy. Spend loads of many, make claims of false gains and deny spectacular failures. It’s like checking boxes on a form for these people. They see “gains” and “successes” in the last 20 years of American wallowing in Afghanistan. “Look what we’re doing for women!” “Look what we’re doing for democracy!” “Look what we’re doing to fight terror!” They get this bunk published in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Zalmay has been at it for over 3 decades.
When you get good at failure, you probably can get your timing pretty tight. What appears to be in play is a “peace talk” that no party to it takes seriously. The Taliban are not going to give any concessions on the sticking points of keeping US CT (counter terror) units in Afghanistan or enshrining any form of women’s rights that we would recognize. On women’s rights they agree to do whatever they can as long as it conforms to their interpretation of Islam. In the real world, that is called a loop hole. It’s about ten miles wide. On keeping CT forces in Afghanistan, it’s already being leaked that there are secret “annexes” in the agreement that will allow for this. Really? Why were they leaked?
This is being set up to fail. It’s an old game. STATE has been doing this in South asia forever. If jezail.org reads this right, it will fail catastrophically just before the election. There will be a bombing in Kabul or something dramatic.
Jezail.org is not alone in our misgivings about this “process” in Doha. So we include this video from journalist Shekhar Gupta who is also skeptical about a series of event he sees as being linked. It’s a slightly different from what we see but it rhymes.
Regards to All,
jezail.org on the web
and
jezail.org on FaceBook
We meant to hold people accountable
We name names, not just policies
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-22--Zelensky angers Putin, as Ukraine considers pulling out of Minsk Agreement (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky .
The two leaders discussed various aspects of settling the ‘ frozen ’ conflict in Ukraine ’ s east , as Zelensky has been hinting that he is preparing to pull out of the Minsk agreement .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
The President of Russia emphasized the importance of the complete and unconditional implementation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decisions made at the Normandy format summits , including the one in Paris on December 9 , 2019 .
In the context of certain statements made by some Ukrainian authorities , Vladimir Putin put the question bluntly – does Kiev intend to fulfil the Minsk agreements in practice ?
The presidents also discussed issues of maintaining a steady ceasefire , further disengagement of forces and weapons from the line of contact and mine clearing .
The leaders expressed a willingness to continue releasing and exchanging the detainees involved in the conflict .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anniversary of the Great Victory the Russian President emphasized the contribution of all Soviet peoples to the Victory over Nazi Germany and noted that distorting the historical truths about the events of WWII was unacceptable .
In addition , Vladimir Putin expressed his condolences over the death of Ukrainian citizens in a traffic accident in Pskov Region on February 13 .

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 telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky.
The two leaders discussed various aspects of settling the ‘frozen’ conflict in Ukraine’s east, as Zelensky has been hinting that he is preparing to pull out of the Minsk agreement.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
https://soundcloud.com/user-901836666/zelensky-angers-putin-as-ukraine-considers-pulling-out-of-minsk-agreement
Via Kremlin Official Site…
The President of Russia emphasized the importance of the complete and unconditional implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures and the decisions made at the Normandy format summits, including the one in Paris on December 9, 2019.
In the context of certain statements made by some Ukrainian authorities, Vladimir Putin put the question bluntly – does Kiev intend to fulfil the Minsk agreements in practice?
The presidents also discussed issues of maintaining a steady ceasefire, further disengagement of forces and weapons from the line of contact and mine clearing.
The leaders expressed a willingness to continue releasing and exchanging the detainees involved in the conflict.
In the context of the forthcoming 75th anniversary of the Great Victory the Russian President emphasized the contribution of all Soviet peoples to the Victory over Nazi Germany and noted that distorting the historical truths about the events of WWII was unacceptable.
In addition, Vladimir Putin expressed his condolences over the death of Ukrainian citizens in a traffic accident in Pskov Region on February 13.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-22--How Bernie Sanders Will Destroy the Deep State if He Becomes President

Joe Lauria at Consortium News headlined on February 21st , “ Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With ‘ Report ’ Russia is Aiding Sanders ” , and he noted that , If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S. citizens , the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up the claims .
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the [ Washington ] Post , “ according to people familiar with the matter.
” Zero evidence was produced to back up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken , ” the Post reported .
That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known .
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified “ information ” just because it comes from an intelligence source .
Reporting such assertions without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility .
It shows total trust in U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies .
Despite the untrustworthiness of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush that they would be able to present to the American public a “ slam-dunk ” case that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was to blame for the 9/11 attacks , and despite their similar serial lying up to the present time , Senator Sanders issued a public statement that “ Unlike Donald Trump , I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend .
He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia.
” Regardless of whether he actually believes that Putin is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this was necessary in the context of the ceaseless anti-Putin propaganda in America ’ s ‘ news ’ -reporting and from America ’ s ‘ intelligence ’ agencies , all of which have for decades been effectively controlled by America ’ s billionaires , who are now terrified that Sanders might actually become President .
Their agents are consequently smearing him .
America ’ s hundreds of billionaires ARE America ’ s Deep State , and those hundreds of individuals are the only people who are actually represented by their media and ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason why we invaded and occupy and destroyed Iraq , all on the basis of lies .
This is the reason we invaded and destroyed Libya , all on the basis of lies .
This is the reason why we hired Al Qaeda in Syria to lead the hundreds of jihadist groups that have since been trying to overthrow and replace Syria ’ s secular non-sectarian President Bashar al-Assad .
None of the American billionaires ’ fronts — not the CIA , nor any others — have publicized , but they instead all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and basically all of the really important historical events during the past twenty years which shape the international world in which we all are living .
Democracy in America is impossible under such circumstances as this .
Back in 2002 , Sanders was able to refuse to authorize George W. Bush to invade Iraq and yet still not have his career in Congress destroyed by that ‘ unpatriotic ’ ( actually courageously patriotic ) act .
But in today ’ s environment , any member of Congress who fails to demonize Vladimir Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cold War which was ended by Russia in 1991 has secretly continued by America ever since — which it HAS .
America ’ s billionaires are even more opposed to ending the Cold War than they are opposed to increasing taxes on the rich up to international standards for industrialized nations .
They will accept high taxes — and during the 1950s the super-rich accepted even a 90 % marginal rate of taxation — but they will not , under any circumstances , accept ending America ’ s recent quest to replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and order ; they DEMAND that the U.S. Government , which they control , must control the entire world , including Russia .
This is essential to their all-encompassing global empire , the global dictatorship by America ’ s international corporations .
That is the core belief of the Deep State , and no Sanders Presidency will be able to succeed unless a President Sanders will strip America ’ s billionaires of the control they enjoy over the American Government through the Deep State .
The Deep State is the U.S. billionaires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the U.S. Government .
Only by ending that control will America ’ s Deep State be brought to an end .
Sanders is the only viable U.S. Presidential candidate who authentically does threaten the billionaires ’ control over ‘ our ’ government ; and the only way that he will be able to succeed is by destroying their Deep State , their control over the Government and over their press or ‘ news ’ media .
This is an internal U.S. war , right now , between the Deep State and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who constantly caves to their demands ) but also Bernie Sanders on the left ( who has yet to be in a position really to challenge their control over America ) .
So : how can Sanders do it , if he becomes the President ?
Fight like hell and be willing to sacrifice even himself , if need be , so as to destroy their control over America .
Be what Trump only pretends to be .
This is the only way that it might be able to be done .
Sincerity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courage .
Never backtracking .
Right now , America accounts for about half of the entire world ’ s military expenditures , and that can ’ t go on if America is to take care of its real problems .
Those corporations , such as Lockheed Martin , are not going to yield without there being now a second American revolution , a revolution of control .
It will have to be a total revolution of control — not just over Wall Street , and not just over the hedge funds , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not just over the healthcare system , and not just over the universities , and not just over the private foundations and other ‘ non-profits ’ ( which largely privatize to billionaires the decisions as to what ‘ needs ’ to be done for the good of the entire country ) .
Why do billionaires get tax-breaks for funding ‘ nonprofits ’ which expand their own power not only over commerce but especially over national priorities and the government itself ?
The corruption is so deep and so pervasive .
Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting the Democratic Party ’ s superdelegates , instead of the voters in the primaries and caucuses , to choose whom the Party ’ s nominee for the U.S. Presidency will be .
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
Joe Lauria at Consortium News headlined on February 21st, “Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With ‘Report’ Russia is Aiding Sanders”, and he noted that,
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S. citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up the claims.
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the [Washington] Post, “according to people familiar with the matter.” Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies’ assertion.
“It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken,” the Post reported. That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified “information” just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.
Despite the untrustworthiness of the intelligence agencies that had told President George W. Bush that they would be able to present to the American public a “slam-dunk” case that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was to blame for the 9/11 attacks, and despite their similar serial lying up to the present time, Senator Sanders issued a public statement that “Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend. He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia.” Regardless of whether he actually believes that Putin is an “autocratic thug,” his saying this was necessary in the context of the ceaseless anti-Putin propaganda in America’s ‘news’-reporting and from America’s ‘intelligence’ agencies, all of which have for decades been effectively controlled by America’s billionaires, who are now terrified that Sanders might actually become President. Their agents are consequently smearing him. America’s hundreds of billionaires ARE America’s Deep State, and those hundreds of individuals are the only people who are actually represented by their media and ‘our’ Government.
This is the reason why we invaded and occupy and destroyed Iraq, all on the basis of lies.
This is the reason we invaded and destroyed Libya, all on the basis of lies.
This is the reason why we hired Al Qaeda in Syria to lead the hundreds of jihadist groups that have since been trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s secular non-sectarian President Bashar al-Assad.
None of the American billionaires’ fronts — not the CIA, nor any others — have publicized, but they instead all have hidden, all of these realities and basically all of the really important historical events during the past twenty years which shape the international world in which we all are living. Democracy in America is impossible under such circumstances as this.
Back in 2002, Sanders was able to refuse to authorize George W. Bush to invade Iraq and yet still not have his career in Congress destroyed by that ‘unpatriotic’ (actually courageously patriotic) act. But in today’s environment, any member of Congress who fails to demonize Vladimir Putin is ‘unpatriotic’ — as if the Cold War which was ended by Russia in 1991 has secretly continued by America ever since — which it HAS.
America’s billionaires are even more opposed to ending the Cold War than they are opposed to increasing taxes on the rich up to international standards for industrialized nations. They will accept high taxes — and during the 1950s the super-rich accepted even a 90% marginal rate of taxation — but they will not, under any circumstances, accept ending America’s recent quest to replace the U.N as the basis of international law and order; they DEMAND that the U.S. Government, which they control, must control the entire world, including Russia. This is essential to their all-encompassing global empire, the global dictatorship by America’s international corporations. That is the core belief of the Deep State, and no Sanders Presidency will be able to succeed unless a President Sanders will strip America’s billionaires of the control they enjoy over the American Government through the Deep State. The Deep State is the U.S. billionaires; it is the control they have over the U.S. Government. Only by ending that control will America’s Deep State be brought to an end. Sanders is the only viable U.S. Presidential candidate who authentically does threaten the billionaires’ control over ‘our’ government; and the only way that he will be able to succeed is by destroying their Deep State, their control over the Government and over their press or ‘news’ media. This is an internal U.S. war, right now, between the Deep State and not only Donald Trump on the right (who constantly caves to their demands) but also Bernie Sanders on the left (who has yet to be in a position really to challenge their control over America).
So: how can Sanders do it, if he becomes the President? Fight like hell and be willing to sacrifice even himself, if need be, so as to destroy their control over America. Be what Trump only pretends to be. This is the only way that it might be able to be done. Sincerity. Determination. Mono-focus. And great courage. Never backtracking.
Right now, America accounts for about half of the entire world’s military expenditures, and that can’t go on if America is to take care of its real problems. Those corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, are not going to yield without there being now a second American revolution, a revolution of control. It will have to be a total revolution of control — not just over Wall Street, and not just over the hedge funds, and not just over the private equity funds, and not just over the healthcare system, and not just over the universities, and not just over the private foundations and other ‘non-profits’ (which largely privatize to billionaires the decisions as to what ‘needs’ to be done for the good of the entire country). Why do billionaires get tax-breaks for funding ‘nonprofits’ which expand their own power not only over commerce but especially over national priorities and the government itself? The corruption is so deep and so pervasive.
Right now, the corruption is focused on getting the Democratic Party’s superdelegates, instead of the voters in the primaries and caucuses, to choose whom the Party’s nominee for the U.S. Presidency will be.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-23--How Elizabeth Warren Still Might Get the DNC’s Presidential Nod

Democratic Party billionaires continue to provide indications that they won ’ t accept Bernie Sanders to be their Party ’ s Presidential nominee , and unless Sanders can amass over 50 % of the delegate-votes in the Convention ’ s first-round balloting ( which is extremely unlikely ) , those billionaires ( via their agents at the Convention , the DNC ’ s 700+ superdelegates ) will decide whom the nominee will be , and it won ’ t be Sanders .
Whom will it be , then ?
If it won ’ t turn out to be Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of Sanders ’ s voters ) , then a walk-out or possible riot at the Convention will be likely ; and , even if Warren becomes the nominee , her accepting the nomination under those circumstances would greatly depress Democratic Party turnout in the final , November 3rd , general election ; and then the Republicans will probably have a lock-hold on not only the White House but both houses of the Congress , and so President Trump will have no limit upon his power .
Republican billionaires might be delighted with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ( even though they all know that his rule is extremely favorable to any American billionaire ’ s interests ) .
The public , of course , would suffer enormously — and not because it would be a dictatorship by Republican billionaires , but because it would be a dictatorship ( by the billionaires ) which would be even more total than under Bush , or under Obama , or under Trump , during Trump ’ s first term — it would be a totalitarian dictatorship , and decidedly far-right .
Certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictatorship in this country that is to be even more total than the presently existing one , then it will be racist-fascist , ideologically nazi , and certainly not socialistic at all , not at all a leftist dictatorship , which is communism , but it would instead be a capitalistic , extreme rightist , dictatorship , which is fascism — in Trump ’ s case , it would also be racist , and therefore the nazi ( or racist ) variety of fascism , which would be hating especially Shiite Moslems , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and which are strong also in Iraq , Syria , and Lebanon .
Israel would be delighted at such a Trump regime , and so would the Sauds ( fanatical Sunnis , and that ’ s the variety of Moslems which loathe Shiites ) .
Any form of fascism is dictatorial capitalism , just as any form of ( at least Marxist ) communism is dictatorial socialism ; and , with a totally unrestrained Trump , we would certainly have totalitarian dictatorial capitalism , and even less socialism than we currently have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Medicare , Medicaid , Social Security , and all the rest of the Democratic Party ’ s existing socialistic programs , each of which had been democratically passed into law ) .
However , even the Democratic Party ’ s ‘ news ’ -media , such as MSNBC , since they ’ re controlled by Democratic Party billionaires , fear-monger vastly more against any form of socialism than against totalitarian dictatorial capitalism — Bernie Sanders so terrifies the owners of our ‘ news ’ -media , because no billionaire wants there to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And here is an example of their agents ’ fear-mongering against Sanders ’ s “ socialism ” : It ’ s an excerpt from MSNBC , on February 7th : CHRIS MATTHEWS : I think that the Democratic Party has to figure out its ideology .
… A lot of us will be sorting it out if the Democratic Party runs a socialist candidate .
That ’ s a change from the Democratic Party .
The Democratic Party has been to the left of the Republican Party on the issue of mixed capitalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Security , Medicare , Medicaid , enormously popular programs .
I think , ACA Obamacare has also — I wish they ’ d follow through with it , make it work .
I think most Americans would be happy to have a public option and have Medicare follow through with [ that ] .
But I don ’ t want to get into – you know , I ’ m on every night – and I ’ d let the Democrats figure this out .
I have my own views of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be glad to tell them , share them with you in private and they go back to the early 1950s .
I have an attitude about them .
I remember the Cold War , I have an attitude towards Castro .
I believe that if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War , there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed and certain other people would be there cheering , OK ?
So I have a problem with people taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know who Bernie supports over these years .
I don ’ t know what he means by socialism .
One week it ’ s “ Denmaak ” [ Denmark ] — what do you mean by “ Denmaak ” ?
Okay that ’ s harmless , basically a capitalist country with a lot of good social welfare programs .
Denmark is harmless .
CHRIS HAYES : Pretty clearly [ Sanders means ] in the Denmark category [ not the Soviet Union or even Cuba ] .
MATTHEWS : Are you sure ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell you that ?
HAYES : Well , I mean , that ’ s what he says and that ’ s what his agenda calls for , right ?
MATTHEWS : Yes , yes , yes , yes .
Well let ’ s see , let ’ s see , let ’ s figure that out .
JOY REID : But we haven ’ t seen a campaign yet where video of him praising the other versus – REID : Castro has been used .
It will be used .
HAYES : That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ REID : You must see how that in place .
HAYES : – what the effect that has – I mean – MATTHEWS : Well , what does he think of Castro ?
That ’ s a great question .
What did you think of Fidelismo ?
Though only Matthews expressed the extremist view there , none of the other NBC moderators there ripped into it .
Clearly , their employer doesn ’ t want anything which criticizes capitalism nor which asserts that fascism is dictatorial capitalism and describes today ’ s U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or pro-U.S.-imperialism , mouthpiece of the Democratic Party .
Are there any Democratic Party mouthpieces that are not ?
17 February 2020 , LAS VEGAS ( AP ) — A growing number of Democratic lawmakers , union officials , state leaders and party strategists agree that Bernie Sanders is a risky nominee to put up against President Donald Trump .
There ’ s less agreement about whether — and how — to stop him .
Critics of the Vermont senator , who has long identified as a democratic socialist , are further than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind a moderate alternative .
None of the viable centrists in the race is eager to exit the campaign to clear a path for a candidate to become a clear counter to Sanders .
And Sanders is looking to Saturday ’ s Nevada caucuses to post another win that would further his status as an early front-runner .
With fear and frustration rising in the party ’ s establishment wing , a high-stakes math problem is emerging .
It could be impossible to blunt Sanders as long as a trio of moderate candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Pete Buttigieg , former Vice President Joe Biden and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar — stay in the race .
And with former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the swath of states that vote on Super Tuesday , March 3 , the effort to stop Sanders will become even more challenging when the campaign goes national next month .
“ You see this tremendous angst in the party — ‘ What are we going to do ?
’ ” said Terry McAuliffe , a former Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic National Committee .
“ We need to unify as fast as we can.
” … Then there ’ s this , exposing some of the billionaires ’ other ‘ news ’ media : “ Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With ‘ Report ’ Russia is Aiding Sanders ” Without any proof , The New York Times and Washington Post run “ Russia helping Sanders ” stories , and Sanders responds by bashing Russia , writes Joe Lauria .
With Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment , The Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources against Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign .
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S. citizens , the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up the claims .
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post , “ according to people familiar with the matter.
” Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies ’ assertion .
“ It is not clear what form that Russian assistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known .
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified “ information ” just because it comes from an intelligence source .
Reporting such assertions without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility .
It shows total trust in U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies .
Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the Democratic pack .
Politico reported Friday that former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entry into the race is explicitly to stop Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention .
A day after The New York Times reported , also without evidence , that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in November , the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too , again without substance .
Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days .
… The fear-mongering against Russia ( which after communism has actually been vastly less imperialistic and vastly less pushing “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Government has been ) is supposed to encourage the type of thinking that Chris Matthews has expressed especially well .
And , of course , that is supposed to lead to a totalitarian second term for Donald Trump .
Matthews thinks that “ Democratic moderates ” should ditch the Party ’ s Presidential nominee in 2020 if it ’ s Sanders , so as to “ wait four years and put in a Democrat that they like.
” So , at least his employers at MSNBC prefer four more years of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout for congressional Democrats on November 3rd and a Republican lock-hold on the Government in Trump ’ s second term .
It ’ s clearly billionaires ’ control of the Government that they prefer , even above control of the Government by their own Party .
It ’ s strictly a class matter , in their view .
Elizabeth Warren ’ s candidacy is the only thing now that even conceivably might stand in the way of America ’ s billionaires failing to be able to offer the American public a choice between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaires ’ ultimate control over U.S. Government policies .
All that they ’ ve got remaining to them is that highly compromised candidate .
As fivethirtyeight dot com said of Warren on 13 February 2020 , “ she ’ s to the right of Sanders and to the left of Biden , Bloomberg and Buttigieg .
But at the moment , being everyone ’ s second choice isn ’ t worth much ; it ’ s just another way of saying that you ’ re few people ’ s first choice.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate such as that , would compromise voter-turnout on the Democratic side , so as to make Trump ’ s victory on November 3rd almost assured .
One thing that Trump elicits on the Republican side is passionate support ; he ’ s the Republican version of Sanders on the Democratic side , in regards to getting his voters to turn up for him at the polls on election-day .
All of this is therefore psychological preparation of the American public for their passive acceptance of nazism controlling the U.S. Government — not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it , and just as imperialistic ( or “ neoconservative ” ) as the German form of it had been .
( Of course , Germany ’ s form of it wasn ’ t called “ neoconservative ” — only the U.S. form is . )
An enormous change has occurred in American politics since 1952 .
What American politician today is willing to say something like this ?
: [ rail-car campaigning for Adlai Stevenson in N.Y. State to become Truman ’ s successor , against Dwight Eisenhower ] Socialism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every advance the people have made in the last 20 years .
Socialism is what they called public power .
Socialism is what they called social security .
Socialism is what they called farm price supports .
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance .
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations .
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people .
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “ Down With Socialism ” on the banner of his “ great crusade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he means at all .
What he really means is , “ Down with Progress–down with Franklin Roosevelt ’ s New Deal , ” and “ down with Harry Truman ’ s fair Deal.
” That is what he means .
That certainly isn ’ t today ’ s DNC , but , in 1952 , it was the mainstream , establishment , side of the Democratic Party .
Unfortunately , the man who had fooled Truman into starting the Cold War on 26 July 1945 , General Dwight Eisenhower , turned out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and became that Party ’ s Presidential nominee in 1952 , and Truman thus discovered too late that Ike had fooled him — the damage had already been done — and therefore Truman ’ s efforts to defeat Ike in 1952 failed .
Ike turned out to be exactly the type of U.S. President that Truman predicted on 10 October 1952 that he would be : an agent of America ’ s super-rich .
Truman was a tragedy , but Eisenhower was far worse .
We live in the world that Truman had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s advice ) , and Eisenhower cemented into stone as a gift to his super-rich friends .
Then , along came Reagan , and the FDR legacy became merely distant past history .
The battle which Sanders faces is to restore America to the agenda that FDR had begun .
Frankly , no one else is even trying to do that .
But , because he is , the billionaires in both Parties will be supporting Trump in 2020 if Sanders becomes the Democratic Party ’ s standard-bearer .
This would be unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaires against the rest of the American public : a pure dollars-versus-voters contest .
Predicting accurately the outcome would probably not be possible , though certainly some guesses would turn out to be more accurate than others .
And , if Warren becomes the Party ’ s standard-bearer , then a totalitarian Trump second term seems almost inevitable , no matter how many campaign-debates she might win against Trump .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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
Democratic Party billionaires continue to provide indications that they won’t accept Bernie Sanders to be their Party’s Presidential nominee, and unless Sanders can amass over 50% of the delegate-votes in the Convention’s first-round balloting (which is in doubt), those billionaires (via their agents at the Convention, the DNC’s 700+ superdelegates) will decide whom the nominee will be, and it won’t be Sanders. Whom will it be, then?
If it won’t turn out to be Elizabeth Warren (who is the second choice of most of Sanders’s voters), then a walk-out or possible riot at the Convention will be likely; and, even if Warren becomes the nominee, her accepting the nomination under those circumstances would greatly depress Democratic Party turnout in the final, November 3rd, general election; and then the Republicans will probably have a lock-hold on not only the White House but both houses of the Congress, and so President Trump will have no limit upon his power. Republican billionaires might be delighted with that, but Democratic billionaires might not be (even though they all know that his rule is extremely favorable to any American billionaire’s interests). The public, of course, would suffer enormously — and not because it would be a dictatorship by Republican billionaires, but because it would be a dictatorship (by the billionaires) which would be even more total than under Bush, or under Obama, or under Trump, during Trump’s first term — it would be a totalitarian dictatorship, and decidedly far-right. Certainly, if there is to be a dictatorship in this country that is to be even more total than the presently existing one, then it will be racist-fascist, ideologically nazi, and certainly not socialistic at all, not at all a leftist dictatorship, which is communism, but it would instead be a capitalistic, extreme rightist, dictatorship, which is fascism — in Trump’s case, it would also be racist, and therefore the nazi (or racist) variety of fascism, which would be hating especially Shiite Moslems, the variety that dominate especially in Iran, and which are strong also in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Israel would be delighted at such a Trump regime, and so would the Sauds (fanatical Sunnis, and that’s the variety of Moslems which loathe Shiites).
Any form of fascism is dictatorial capitalism, just as any form of (at least Marxist) communism is dictatorial socialism; and, with a totally unrestrained Trump, we would certainly have totalitarian dictatorial capitalism, and even less socialism than we currently have (because there will be drastic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all the rest of the Democratic Party’s existing socialistic programs, each of which had been democratically passed into law). However, even the Democratic Party’s ‘news’-media, such as MSNBC, since they’re controlled by Democratic Party billionaires, fear-monger vastly more against any form of socialism than against totalitarian dictatorial capitalism — Bernie Sanders so terrifies the owners of our ‘news’-media, because no billionaire wants there to be socialism, but only capitalism. And here is an example of their agents’ fear-mongering against Sanders’s “socialism”:
It’s an excerpt from MSNBC, on February 7th:
http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/11th-hour-with-brian-williams/2020-02-07
“Ukraine call TRANSCRIPT: 2/7/20”, 7 February 2020”
[VIDEO here]
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I think that the Democratic Party has to figure out its ideology. … A lot of us will be sorting it out if the Democratic Party runs a socialist candidate. That’s a change from the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has been to the left of the Republican Party on the issue of mixed capitalism, more social programs. They pushed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, enormously popular programs. I think, ACA Obamacare has also — I wish they’d follow through with it, make it work. I think most Americans would be happy to have a public option and have Medicare follow through with [that].
But I don’t want to get into – you know, I’m on every night – and I’d let the Democrats figure this out. I have my own views of the word socialist, and I’ll be glad to tell them, share them with you in private and they go back to the early 1950s. I have an attitude about them. I remember the Cold War, I have an attitude towards Castro. I believe that if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War, there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed and certain other people would be there cheering, OK?
So I have a problem with people taking the other side. I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years. I don’t know what he means by socialism. One week it’s “Denmaak” [Denmark] — what do you mean by “Denmaak”? Okay that’s harmless, basically a capitalist country with a lot of good social welfare programs. Denmark is harmless.
CHRIS HAYES: Pretty clearly [Sanders means] in the Denmark category [not the Soviet Union or even Cuba].
MATTHEWS: Is he?
HAYES: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Are you sure? How do you know? Did he tell you that?
HAYES: Well, I mean, that’s what he says and that’s what his agenda calls for, right?
MATTHEWS: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Well let’s see, let’s see, let’s figure that out.
JOY REID: But we haven’t seen a campaign yet where video of him praising the other versus –
HAYES: Right, and –
REID: Castro has been used. It will be used.
HAYES: That’s the question of how –
REID: You must see how that in place.
HAYES: – what the effect that has – I mean –
MATTHEWS: Well, what does he think of Castro? That’s a great question. What did you think of Fidelismo?
Though only Matthews expressed the extremist view there, none of the other NBC moderators there ripped into it. Clearly, their employer doesn’t want anything which criticizes capitalism nor which asserts that fascism is dictatorial capitalism and describes today’s U.S. body-politic. MSNBC is a neoconservative, or pro-U.S.-imperialism, mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Are there any Democratic Party mouthpieces that are not?
More recently:
https://apnews.com/4788e8a658d7934e38a389746a7c58c5
“One thing unites establishment Democrats: Fear of Sanders”
17 February 2020, LAS VEGAS (AP) — A growing number of Democratic lawmakers, union officials, state leaders and party strategists agree that Bernie Sanders is a risky nominee to put up against President Donald Trump. There’s less agreement about whether — and how — to stop him.
Critics of the Vermont senator, who has long identified as a democratic socialist, are further than they’ve ever been from unifying behind a moderate alternative. None of the viable centrists in the race is eager to exit the campaign to clear a path for a candidate to become a clear counter to Sanders. And Sanders is looking to Saturday’s Nevada caucuses to post another win that would further his status as an early front-runner.
With fear and frustration rising in the party’s establishment wing, a high-stakes math problem is emerging. It could be impossible to blunt Sanders as long as a trio of moderate candidates — former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar — stay in the race. And with former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the swath of states that vote on Super Tuesday, March 3, the effort to stop Sanders will become even more challenging when the campaign goes national next month.
“You see this tremendous angst in the party — ‘What are we going to do?’” said Terry McAuliffe, a former Virginia governor who was also chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “We need to unify as fast as we can.” …
Then there’s this, exposing some of the billionaires’ other ‘news’ media:
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/21/apparent-us-intel-meddling-in-us-election-with-report-russia-is-aiding-sanders/
“Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With ‘Report’ Russia is Aiding Sanders”
February 21, 2020 • By Joe Lauria
Without any proof, The New York Times and Washington Post run “Russia helping Sanders” stories, and Sanders responds by bashing Russia, writes Joe Lauria.
With Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S. citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up the claims.
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post, “according to people familiar with the matter.” Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies’ assertion.
“It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken,” the Post reported. That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified “information” just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.
Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the Democratic pack. Politico reported Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s entry into the race is explicitly to stop Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.
A day after The New York Times reported, also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days. …
The fear-mongering against Russia (which after communism has actually been vastly less imperialistic and vastly less pushing “regime-change” in foreign countries than the U.S. Government has been) is supposed to encourage the type of thinking that Chris Matthews has expressed especially well. And, of course, that is supposed to lead to a totalitarian second term for Donald Trump. Matthews thinks that “Democratic moderates” should ditch the Party’s Presidential nominee in 2020 if it’s Sanders, so as to “wait four years and put in a Democrat that they like.” So, at least his employers at MSNBC prefer four more years of Trump — even if it would mean depressed turnout for congressional Democrats on November 3rd and a Republican lock-hold on the Government in Trump’s second term. It’s clearly billionaires’ control of the Government that they prefer, even above control of the Government by their own Party. It’s strictly a class matter, in their view.
Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy is the only thing now that even conceivably might stand in the way of America’s billionaires failing to be able to offer the American public a choice between two final Presidential nominees who both accept billionaires’ ultimate control over U.S. Government policies. All that they’ve got remaining to them is that highly compromised candidate. As fivethirtyeight dot com said of Warren on 13 February 2020, “she’s to the right of Sanders and to the left of Biden, Bloomberg and Buttigieg. But at the moment, being everyone’s second choice isn’t worth much; it’s just another way of saying that you’re few people’s first choice.” In other words: a ‘compromise’ candidate such as that, would compromise voter-turnout on the Democratic side, so as to make Trump’s victory on November 3rd almost assured. One thing that Trump elicits on the Republican side is passionate support; he’s the Republican version of Sanders on the Democratic side, in regards to getting his voters to turn up for him at the polls on election-day.
All of this is therefore psychological preparation of the American public for their passive acceptance of nazism controlling the U.S. Government — not the German form, the U.S. form of it, and just as imperialistic (or “neoconservative”) as the German form of it had been. (Of course, Germany’s form of it wasn’t called “neoconservative” — only the U.S. form is.)
An enormous change has occurred in American politics since 1952. What American politician today is willing to say something like this?:
——
https://web.archive.org/web/20190404174655/https://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php/index.php
“Public Papers, Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953, October 10, 1952”
[rail-car campaigning for Adlai Stevenson in N.Y. State to become Truman’s successor, against Dwight Eisenhower]
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is, “Down with Progress–down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That is what he means.
——
That certainly isn’t today’s DNC, but, in 1952, it was the mainstream, establishment, side of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the man who had fooled Truman into starting the Cold War on 26 July 1945, General Dwight Eisenhower, turned out to have been actually a Republican, and became that Party’s Presidential nominee in 1952, and Truman thus discovered too late that Ike had fooled him — the damage had already been done — and therefore Truman’s efforts to defeat Ike in 1952 failed. Ike turned out to be exactly the type of U.S. President that Truman predicted on 10 October 1952 that he would be: an agent of America’s super-rich. Truman was a tragedy, but Eisenhower was far worse. We live in the world that Truman had started in error (on Ike’s advice), and Eisenhower cemented into stone as a gift to his super-rich friends. Then, along came Reagan, and the FDR legacy became merely distant past history. The battle which Sanders faces is to restore America to the agenda that FDR had begun. Frankly, no one else is even trying to do that. But, because he is, the billionaires in both Parties will be supporting Trump in 2020 if Sanders becomes the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer. This would be unprecedented — a U.S. Presidential contest pitting the billionaires against the rest of the American public: a pure dollars-versus-voters contest. Predicting accurately the outcome would probably not be possible, though certainly some guesses would turn out to be more accurate than others. And, if Warren becomes the Party’s standard-bearer, then a totalitarian Trump second term seems almost inevitable, no matter how many campaign-debates she might win against Trump.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-23--Assange legal team takes MASSIVE RISK with ‘Russia pardon’ defense (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the mainstream media reports that the Trump White House asked Julian Assange to cover up links with Russia , while stating that Russia did not hack the DNC…for that Trump would pardon Assange , according to MSM headlines .
Problem is that media headlines are completely misleading what was argued in court regarding the DNC emails , but nonetheless Assange ’ s line of defense will rely on the Russian DNC hacking narrative going forward , which may prove to be a massive risk in preventing Assange ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Almost a year since Robert Mueller ’ s ‘ Russiagate ’ probe dropped dead from lack of evidence , mainstream media outlets are still pushing ‘ Donald Trump-Russia collusion ’ as established fact , twisting words to make it seem that way .
Case in point are breathless bombshells on Wednesday that Julian Assange ’ s lawyers confirmed US President Donald Trump offered the WikiLeaks founder a pardon if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of the Democrats in 2016 ( Guardian ) or “ cover up the involvement of Russia in hacking ” the DNC ( The Daily Beast ) .
Both outlets base their headlines on a revelation from Westminster Magistrates Court , where Assange ’ s barrister Edward Fitzgerald presented a statement from another attorney , Jennifer Robinson , about US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher “ going to see Mr. Assange and saying , on instructions from the president , he was offering a pardon or some other way out , if Mr. Assange… said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DNC leaks.
” Though both publications faithfully reproduced Fitzgerald ’ s quote , they both jumped to the exact same conclusion , presenting Robinson ’ s statement as proof that Trump sought to “ deny ” or “ cover up ” what they treat as the established fact – i.e .
the ‘ Russian hack ’ of the DNC , and the subsequent publication of internal party emails .
Never mind that the ‘ Russian hack ’ has only been alleged by Mueller ’ s prosecutors and the US intelligence community – the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and after the 2016 election – the main story around which this malicious misinterpretation resolves isn ’ t even true .
While Rohrabacher did visit Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London , he said it was Assange who showed him “ definitive proof that Russia was not the source ” for the DNC emails , according to a February 2018 report in the Intercept .
Furthermore , Rohrabacher said that he was never able to share this with Trump , because he was blocked by the president ’ s chief of staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Not only Kelly , but others are worried if I say one word to Trump about Russia , that it would appear to out-of-control prosecutors that that is where the collusion is , ” Rohrabacher told the Intercept .
Meanwhile , Assange did not want to release the evidence publicly , so as not to compromise his sources and methods .
The timeline of events also goes against the Guardian and Beast ’ s interpretation .
Months after the meeting with Rohrabacher – in November 2018 – a secret US indictment against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , finding no evidence of any Americans “ colluding ” with Russia in the 2016 election , on March 22 , 2019 .
Less than three weeks later , on April 11 , Assange ’ s asylum was revoked and he was hauled out of the embassy in handcuffs .
The WikiLeaks publisher was thrown into a dungeon in Belmarsh , where he has been ever since .
In May , the US government revealed the expanded indictment , threatening him with 175 years behind bars for “ attempted hacking ” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosures , not the 2016 election .
Meanwhile , the same media outlets that have spent the past three years screeching about Trump ’ s “ collusion ” with Russia are twisting words of Assange ’ s lawyers to retroactively validate their repeatedly debunked reporting – and see the WikiLeaks journalist imprisoned forever .

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 mainstream media reports that the Trump White House asked Julian Assange to cover up links with Russia, while stating that Russia did not hack the DNC…for that Trump would pardon Assange, according to MSM headlines.
Problem is that media headlines are completely misleading what was argued in court regarding the DNC emails, but nonetheless Assange’s line of defense will rely on the Russian DNC hacking narrative going forward, which may prove to be a massive risk in preventing Assange’s extradition to the United States.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
https://soundcloud.com/user-901836666/assange-legal-team-takes-massive-risk-with-russia-pardon-defense
Via RT…
Almost a year since Robert Mueller’s ‘Russiagate’ probe dropped dead from lack of evidence, mainstream media outlets are still pushing ‘Donald Trump-Russia collusion’ as established fact, twisting words to make it seem that way.
Case in point are breathless bombshells on Wednesday that Julian Assange’s lawyers confirmed US President Donald Trump offered the WikiLeaks founder a pardon if he “denied Russia link to hack” of the Democrats in 2016 (Guardian) or “cover up the involvement of Russia in hacking” the DNC (The Daily Beast).
Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack' https://t.co/BLsddLnIfP — The Guardian (@guardian) February 19, 2020
CORRECTION: Julian Assange’s lawyer claimed in a London court that President Trump offered to pardon the WikiLeaks founder if he agreed to cover up the involvement of Russia in hacking emails from the DNC https://t.co/oW74BG9YYz — The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) February 19, 2020
Both outlets base their headlines on a revelation from Westminster Magistrates Court, where Assange’s barrister Edward Fitzgerald presented a statement from another attorney, Jennifer Robinson, about US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher “going to see Mr. Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr. Assange… said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.”
Though both publications faithfully reproduced Fitzgerald’s quote, they both jumped to the exact same conclusion, presenting Robinson’s statement as proof that Trump sought to “deny” or “cover up” what they treat as the established fact – i.e. the ‘Russian hack’ of the DNC, and the subsequent publication of internal party emails.
Never mind that the ‘Russian hack’ has only been alleged by Mueller’s prosecutors and the US intelligence community – the same one that spied on Trump during and after the 2016 election – the main story around which this malicious misinterpretation resolves isn’t even true.
While Rohrabacher did visit Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, he said it was Assange who showed him “definitive proof that Russia was not the source” for the DNC emails, according to a February 2018 report in the Intercept.
Beyond this point, Assange always said no state actor was involved in furnishing documents to WikiLeaks, which would have been a fulfilment of this alleged deal – yet rather than being pardoned, the Trump Admin indicted him. But Russia + WikiLeaks = zero journalistic standards: https://t.co/zvTjSYnQfc — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 19, 2020
Furthermore, Rohrabacher said that he was never able to share this with Trump, because he was blocked by the president’s chief of staff at the time, John Kelly.
“Not only Kelly, but others are worried if I say one word to Trump about Russia, that it would appear to out-of-control prosecutors that that is where the collusion is,” Rohrabacher told the Intercept. Meanwhile, Assange did not want to release the evidence publicly, so as not to compromise his sources and methods.
The timeline of events also goes against the Guardian and Beast’s interpretation. Months after the meeting with Rohrabacher – in November 2018 – a secret US indictment against Assange was revealed.
Mueller delivered his report, finding no evidence of any Americans “colluding” with Russia in the 2016 election, on March 22, 2019. Less than three weeks later, on April 11, Assange’s asylum was revoked and he was hauled out of the embassy in handcuffs. The WikiLeaks publisher was thrown into a dungeon in Belmarsh, where he has been ever since. In May, the US government revealed the expanded indictment, threatening him with 175 years behind bars for “attempted hacking” – but in relation to the 2010 Pentagon disclosures, not the 2016 election.
Meanwhile, the same media outlets that have spent the past three years screeching about Trump’s “collusion” with Russia are twisting words of Assange’s lawyers to retroactively validate their repeatedly debunked reporting – and see the WikiLeaks journalist imprisoned forever.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-23--Philippine Patriots Say ‘No to WWIII’ and ‘Yes to the New Silk Road’

The Philippines President Duterte ’ s recent announcement that the 1998 U.S.-Philippines Visiting Forces Agreement ( VFA ) would be cancelled has renewed hope that not only would this former U.S. colony finally attain freedom from imperial manipulation , but also that a new emerging age of infrastructure development can usher in an end of poverty and war in the Pacific .
On Feb. 7 , the Philippine president notified the USA that a 180 day period has begun in which time American military personal will have to evacuate the territory with Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin stating “ the deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the united states has received the notice of termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement .
As a diplomatic courtesy there will be no further factual announcements following this self explanatory development.
” Why America ’ s neocons have been caught blindsided by this announcement remains a mystery as Duterte has threatened to cancel this treaty since his first weeks in office and even told RT on January 24 that “ America is not the Philippines and the Philippines is not America .
It ain ’ t that way anymore and I refuse to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This announcement puts yet another wrench in the gears of those agencies attempting to run a war plan against China as part of the Obama-era Pivot to Asia and broader full spectrum dominance agenda with a vast military infrastructure spread out around China ’ s perimeter .
Some of the points of tension built up carefully over the years around China ( any of which acting as a potential spark plug to nuclear war ) include North Korea , Japan ’ s territorial conflict with China , Malaysia and the Philippines ’ dispute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sea .
With the killing of the VFA , over 300 military engagements will now be flushed as will America ’ s capacity to rotate U.S. troops through Philippines military bases .
Its death also brings Duterte one step closer to ending the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement signed under Obama-clone Benigno Aquino III in 2014 .
In 2015 , while leading a fight against the EDCA , Citizen National Guard founder Butch Valdez was the first analyst to state that the U.S. military installations had likely stockpiled nuclear weapons aimed .
But stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be silos of nuclear armed medium-long range rockets aimed at China.
” In recent months Duterte joined Valdez in this analysis .
In March 2019 , Philippines Secretary of Defense and long-time Duterte collaborator with Delfin Lorenzana stated to EIR magazine : “ We are in striking distance of Chinese medium range missiles .
If U.S. forces would be stationed here , if there is a conflict between the United States and China , then we are a fair target by the Chinese.
” Although the surface excuse used to justify this act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dela Rosa ’ s visa , the true reasons for this break from American military doctrine go much deeper as alluded to by Valdez .
Dela Rosa is the former national police chief who headed Duterte ’ s drug war and is accused by western neo liberal circles of not respecting the human rights of the Philippines ’ powerful narco terrorists- 12 000 of whom have died since the crackdown began , and which Trump has supported enthusiastically on multiple occasions .
Trump has also separated himself loudly from war hawks in administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s decision to end the VFA stating “ well I never minded that very much , to be honest .
We helped the Philippines very much .
We helped them defeat ISIS… I don ’ t really mind if they would like to do that .
It will save a lot of money .
My views are different from others.
” The deeper reasons for the ending of the VFA and expanded U.S. military access to the Philippines has more to do with the fact that it has become clearly evident that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over any number of Pacific hotspots would result in any host country working with America to be wiped off the map in such war .
The fact that the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Pact signed in 1951 is still active to this day , makes American military activity in the Philippines ever more dangerous .
As Duterte ’ s enemy Senator Panfilo Lacson lamented , killing the VFA would reduce the 1951 treaty “ to a mere paper treaty as far as the U.S. is concerned.
” In his EIR interview , Lorenzana went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s assassination by U.S. neocons who are in opposition to the positive relationship Duterte shares with President Trump , and also the importance of the Philippines ’ turn towards a pro-China/Russia alliance since Duterte ’ s inauguration : “ We have been cautioned by our friends that the neocons might try to take out the President .
Even President Duterte talked about that several times in his public speeches .
They are watching what our President does , that if he does things that align with their interests , as the neocons see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer with the Chinese , Russia and India .
But China said they don ’ t want a military alliance with anybody .
They want to have trade relations with everybody .
They want to help people to improve themselves so that we can trade.
” Indeed , on November 2018 , the Philippines signed onto China ’ s Belt and Road Initiative , and Duterte has invoked a Build Build Build strategy which relies heavily on Chinese investment into Philippines infrastructure .
In his RT interview , Duterte stated “ I want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we have an increase in trade and commerce .
It ’ s robust ” .
Since 2016 , China and the Philippines have signed historic joint resource development treaties across the South China Sea which American geopoliticians would rather see limited to a zone of conflict .
Other Beijing-funded projects which synergize with the BRI include the Railway link from America ’ s former Clark Base to the new coastal city of Subic ( another former U.S. Base ) , the creation of New Clark City which will relieve the population pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ River in Manila and Chico Rivers , Pump irrigation projects in the north , the New Centennial Water Source-Kaliwa dam and the Philippine National Railway South Long Haul which will soon begin construction .
With an aim to reduce poverty from its current 26 % to 13 % by 2022 while ending the drug pandemic which has resulted in a vast criminal infrastructure covertly supported by western powers for decades , Duterte said that this new alliance with China would usher in “ a golden age for Infrastructure ” .
The first President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the western-backed color revolution coup which toppled Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 ) was Gloria Arroyo who led the nation from 2001-2010 ) .
Arroyo initiated a historic $ 8 billion trade deal with China in 2004 after removing Philippine troops from Iraq to the ire of Dick Cheney and John Bolton .
Arroyo recently gave a speech eloquently expressing her understanding of the Philippines ’ future in this new paradigm of win-win cooperation : “ China is correct in striving for partnership and growth and development with its neighbors .
This enlightened attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China and the world and indeed within China and the Philippines.
” As long as true economic development and long-term thinking drives all discussion of bilateral relationships , rather than empty talk of “ good governance ” and “ free trade ” so popular among shallow technocratic circles today , then a new age of peace and cooperation for all nations under a multipolar world order may yet occur .
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk , and has authored 3 volumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book series .
In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation and can be reached at [ email protected ]

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.
Originally published on the Strategic Culture Foundation
The Philippines President Duterte’s recent announcement that the 1998 U.S.-Philippines Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) would be cancelled has renewed hope that not only would this former U.S. colony finally attain freedom from imperial manipulation, but also that a new emerging age of infrastructure development can usher in an end of poverty and war in the Pacific.
On Feb. 7, the Philippine president notified the USA that a 180 day period has begun in which time American military personal will have to evacuate the territory with Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin stating “the deputy chief of mission of the embassy of the united states has received the notice of termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement. As a diplomatic courtesy there will be no further factual announcements following this self explanatory development.”
Why America’s neocons have been caught blindsided by this announcement remains a mystery as Duterte has threatened to cancel this treaty since his first weeks in office and even told RT on January 24 that “America is not the Philippines and the Philippines is not America. It ain’t that way anymore and I refuse to dovetail under American foreign policy”.
This announcement puts yet another wrench in the gears of those agencies attempting to run a war plan against China as part of the Obama-era Pivot to Asia and broader full spectrum dominance agenda with a vast military infrastructure spread out around China’s perimeter. Some of the points of tension built up carefully over the years around China (any of which acting as a potential spark plug to nuclear war) include North Korea, Japan’s territorial conflict with China, Malaysia and the Philippines’ dispute with China over the resource-rich South China Sea.
With the killing of the VFA, over 300 military engagements will now be flushed as will America’s capacity to rotate U.S. troops through Philippines military bases. Its death also brings Duterte one step closer to ending the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement signed under Obama-clone Benigno Aquino III in 2014. In 2015, while leading a fight against the EDCA, Citizen National Guard founder Butch Valdez was the first analyst to state that the U.S. military installations had likely stockpiled nuclear weapons aimed. But stated that U.S. bases “may very possibly be silos of nuclear armed medium-long range rockets aimed at China.” In recent months Duterte joined Valdez in this analysis.
In March 2019, Philippines Secretary of Defense and long-time Duterte collaborator with Delfin Lorenzana stated to EIR magazine:
“We are in striking distance of Chinese medium range missiles. If U.S. forces would be stationed here, if there is a conflict between the United States and China, then we are a fair target by the Chinese.”
Although the surface excuse used to justify this act has been the American revocation of Senator Dela Rosa’s visa, the true reasons for this break from American military doctrine go much deeper as alluded to by Valdez. Dela Rosa is the former national police chief who headed Duterte’s drug war and is accused by western neo liberal circles of not respecting the human rights of the Philippines’ powerful narco terrorists- 12 000 of whom have died since the crackdown began, and which Trump has supported enthusiastically on multiple occasions.
Trump has also separated himself loudly from war hawks in administration by giving his full support to Duterte’s decision to end the VFA stating “well I never minded that very much, to be honest. We helped the Philippines very much. We helped them defeat ISIS… I don’t really mind if they would like to do that. It will save a lot of money. My views are different from others.”
The deeper reasons for the ending of the VFA and expanded U.S. military access to the Philippines has more to do with the fact that it has become clearly evident that the American agenda for war with China over any number of Pacific hotspots would result in any host country working with America to be wiped off the map in such war. The fact that the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Pact signed in 1951 is still active to this day, makes American military activity in the Philippines ever more dangerous. As Duterte’s enemy Senator Panfilo Lacson lamented, killing the VFA would reduce the 1951 treaty “to a mere paper treaty as far as the U.S. is concerned.”
In his EIR interview, Lorenzana went onto describe the danger of Duterte’s assassination by U.S. neocons who are in opposition to the positive relationship Duterte shares with President Trump, and also the importance of the Philippines’ turn towards a pro-China/Russia alliance since Duterte’s inauguration:
“We have been cautioned by our friends that the neocons might try to take out the President. Even President Duterte talked about that several times in his public speeches. They are watching what our President does, that if he does things that align with their interests, as the neocons see it, or if President Duterte gets closer with the Chinese, Russia and India. But China said they don’t want a military alliance with anybody. They want to have trade relations with everybody. They want to help people to improve themselves so that we can trade.”
Indeed, on November 2018, the Philippines signed onto China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and Duterte has invoked a Build Build Build strategy which relies heavily on Chinese investment into Philippines infrastructure. In his RT interview, Duterte stated “I want new open fronts with Russia and China, we have an increase in trade and commerce. It’s robust”.
Since 2016, China and the Philippines have signed historic joint resource development treaties across the South China Sea which American geopoliticians would rather see limited to a zone of conflict. Other Beijing-funded projects which synergize with the BRI include the Railway link from America’s former Clark Base to the new coastal city of Subic (another former U.S. Base), the creation of New Clark City which will relieve the population pressure from Manilla, two bridges of Pasig River in Manila and Chico Rivers, Pump irrigation projects in the north, the New Centennial Water Source-Kaliwa dam and the Philippine National Railway South Long Haul which will soon begin construction. With an aim to reduce poverty from its current 26% to 13% by 2022 while ending the drug pandemic which has resulted in a vast criminal infrastructure covertly supported by western powers for decades, Duterte said that this new alliance with China would usher in “a golden age for Infrastructure”.
The first President to start this pro-China policy (after the western-backed color revolution coup which toppled Ferdinand Marcos in 1986) was Gloria Arroyo who led the nation from 2001-2010). Arroyo initiated a historic $8 billion trade deal with China in 2004 after removing Philippine troops from Iraq to the ire of Dick Cheney and John Bolton. Arroyo recently gave a speech eloquently expressing her understanding of the Philippines’ future in this new paradigm of win-win cooperation: “China is correct in striving for partnership and growth and development with its neighbors. This enlightened attitude provides a foundation for continued friendship between China and the world and indeed within China and the Philippines.”
As long as true economic development and long-term thinking drives all discussion of bilateral relationships, rather than empty talk of “good governance” and “free trade” so popular among shallow technocratic circles today, then a new age of peace and cooperation for all nations under a multipolar world order may yet occur.
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation and can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-23--Dershowitz drops bomb on Obama with Soros collusion claim (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the claim by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz that he has proof former President Barack Obama “ personally asked ” the FBI to investigate someone “ on behalf of George Soros.
” Q later revealed that the “ someone ” Obama was tasked to investigate was Donald Trump .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said Sunday he has proof that former President Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigate someone “ on behalf of George Soros , ” the liberal billionaire megadonor .
Dershowitz ’ s claim came soon after Attorney General Bill Barr openly asked President Trump to stop tweeting about ongoing Justice Department matters , saying it made it “ impossible ” to do his job .
Barr , who also maintained that Trump never personally intervened in a criminal matter despite Democrats ’ allegations , was hit last week by a letter from former DOJ officials organized by a leftwing group demanding his resignation .
“ There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department during the Kennedy administration and I don ’ t think we saw very many liberal professors arguing against that , ” Dershowitz said in an interview with Breitbart News that aired Sunday on SiriusXM .
“ I have some information as well about the Obama administration – which will be disclosed in a lawsuit at some point , but I ’ m not prepared to disclose it now – about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros , who was a close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say specifically who the target might have been .
Dershowitz added : “ We ’ ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department .
The difference : This president is much more overt about it , he tweets about it .
President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it .
And , I don ’ t think these 1,000 former Justice Department officials would pass the shoe-on-the-other-foot test .
Maybe some of them would , but a good many of them wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president “ could make a decision to really control the Justice Department ” and decide specifically whom to prosecute and not to prosecute .
The former member of Trump ’ s impeachment defense team clarified , however , that it wouldn ’ t be a good move .
“ He shouldn ’ t do it ; it hasn ’ t been done since Thomas Jefferson , ” Dershowitz said .
“ Thomas Jefferson did do it .
We ’ ve seen this throughout our history.
” Pressed on the claim that Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded : “ That ’ s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future , yeah .
That is not unusual .
People whisper to presidents all the time ; presidents whisper to the Justice Department all the time .
It ’ s very common ; it ’ s wrong , whoever does it — but it ’ s common , and we shouldn ’ t think it ’ s unique to any particular president .
I have in my possession the actual 302 [ witness report ] form which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right time come out , but I ’ m not free to disclose it now because it ’ s a case that ’ s not yet been filed.
” Many Democrats , meanwhile , have floated the idea of impeaching Barr , charging that the Justice Department has become too politicized .
Highlighting that line of argument , The Washington Post ran an op-ed slamming Barr for acting as Trump ’ s “ wingman ” — even though former Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly identified himself as Obama ’ s “ wingman.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ News contributor Mollie Hemingway pointed to a 2016 article in The Wall Street Journal , which reported that the Obama DOJ had overruled prosecutors ’ efforts to pursue criminal charges against HSBC Holdings PLC .
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly misled Congress about the matter , saying there was an issue with evidence , when in fact the Obama administration was worried about the global economic consequences of prosecuting the bank .
For his part , Barr has defended the prosecution of former Trump advisor Roger Stone , even as he maintained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommending Stone serve an “ excessive ” sentence of up to nine years in prison .
“ The Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general , and I supported it , ” Barr said last week .
“ I think it was established he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering .
And I thought that was a righteous prosecution , and I was happy that he was convicted .
”

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 claim by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz that he has proof former President Barack Obama “personally asked” the FBI to investigate someone “on behalf of George Soros.”
Q later revealed that the “someone” Obama was tasked to investigate was Donald Trump.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via Fox News…
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said Sunday he has proof that former President Barack Obama “personally asked” the FBI to investigate someone “on behalf of George Soros,” the liberal billionaire megadonor.
Dershowitz’s claim came soon after Attorney General Bill Barr openly asked President Trump to stop tweeting about ongoing Justice Department matters, saying it made it “impossible” to do his job. Barr, who also maintained that Trump never personally intervened in a criminal matter despite Democrats’ allegations, was hit last week by a letter from former DOJ officials organized by a leftwing group demanding his resignation.
“There was a lot of White House control of the Justice Department during the Kennedy administration and I don’t think we saw very many liberal professors arguing against that,” Dershowitz said in an interview with Breitbart News that aired Sunday on SiriusXM. “I have some information as well about the Obama administration – which will be disclosed in a lawsuit at some point, but I’m not prepared to disclose it now – about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his.” He did not say specifically who the target might have been.
Dershowitz added: “We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department. The difference: This president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it. And, I don’t think these 1,000 former Justice Department officials would pass the shoe-on-the-other-foot test. Maybe some of them would, but a good many of them wouldn’t.”
Constitutionally, Dershowitz said, the president “could make a decision to really control the Justice Department” and decide specifically whom to prosecute and not to prosecute. The former member of Trump’s impeachment defense team clarified, however, that it wouldn’t be a good move.
“He shouldn’t do it; it hasn’t been done since Thomas Jefferson,” Dershowitz said. “Thomas Jefferson did do it. We’ve seen this throughout our history.”
Pressed on the claim that Obama pressed for an FBI probe, Dershowitz responded: “That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah. That is not unusual. People whisper to presidents all the time; presidents whisper to the Justice Department all the time. It’s very common; it’s wrong, whoever does it — but it’s common, and we shouldn’t think it’s unique to any particular president. I have in my possession the actual 302 [witness report] form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”
Many Democrats, meanwhile, have floated the idea of impeaching Barr, charging that the Justice Department has become too politicized. Highlighting that line of argument, The Washington Post ran an op-ed slamming Barr for acting as Trump’s “wingman” — even though former Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly identified himself as Obama’s “wingman.”
And, conservative commentator and Fox News contributor Mollie Hemingway pointed to a 2016 article in The Wall Street Journal, which reported that the Obama DOJ had overruled prosecutors’ efforts to pursue criminal charges against HSBC Holdings PLC. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly misled Congress about the matter, saying there was an issue with evidence, when in fact the Obama administration was worried about the global economic consequences of prosecuting the bank.
For his part, Barr has defended the prosecution of former Trump advisor Roger Stone, even as he maintained that career prosecutors had made a mistake by recommending Stone serve an “excessive” sentence of up to nine years in prison.
“The Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general, and I supported it,” Barr said last week. “I think it was established he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution, and I was happy that he was convicted.”
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report