theduran--2020-02-21--How Huffington Post Campaigns for Elizabeth Warren

On Thursday , February 20th , the top headline on the Home Page of the Huffington Post website — a mouthpiece for the Democratic National Committee to reach and persuade a largely young and female progressive Democratic electorate — was “ Finally , The Real Elizabeth Warren Steps Up : The gloves came off at the Democratic primary debate in Vegas.
” The site ’ s lead article said : Again and again on Wednesday night , Warren humiliated former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg ― not only by presenting him with his own words but also by pressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women who worked for him from nondisclosure agreements pertaining to sexual harassment .
Bloomberg refused .
But Bloomberg wasn ’ t the only source of her ire .
In less than a minute , she pummeled three other opponents ― former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( Minn. ) and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) ― on health care .
It praised her throughout as “ the Warren who made Wall Street executives wilt at Senate hearings and became a feminist icon on the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) tried to silence her .
It ’ s the Elizabeth Warren who infuriated President Barack Obama by attacking his trade agenda and assailing his budget deals with Republican leaders.
” It praised her , such as “ She speaks loudly and carries a big stick ― frequently against her own party .
She was Obama ’ s chief antagonist over the Trans-Pacific Partnership , a trade deal that ultimately failed due to opposition from progressive Democrats and a sizable block of House Republicans.
” Actually , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different aspects of the campaign to sink President Obama ’ s TPP and TTIP mega-trade treaties , but the article doesn ’ t even so much as mention Sanders , except with regret at its very end , to say that he might win the nomination instead of her — as if that would be unfortunate .
This sales-pitch was aimed at Democrats who are more progressive than Obama was , and it aims at getting Bernie Sanders voters to switch to supporting Elizabeth Warren instead .
If it had been a paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it couldn ’ t have done a more effective job of diminishing Warren ’ s real opponent , who is the more authentic ( and far more widely trusted ) progressive , in this electoral contest : Sanders .
If Democratic Party billionaires won ’ t be able to get Democratic Party voters to vote for their favorites , Buttigieg , Klobucar , Biden , and Bloomberg , then Warren is their backup person , or fall-back Democrat to run against Donald Trump in the Fall , because Sanders is totally unacceptable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really means when he talks about a “ revolution ” : it ’ s taking the Democratic Party back from its billionaires , who have controlled it nonstop ever since at least 1992 .
Even Warren is acceptable to them — only Sanders is not .
The billionaires who control Huffington Post and all of the other major ‘ news ’ media hire people not only to write such articles but to be editors or producers who will place them on the front page or otherwise at maximum public attention , so as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what they won ’ t .
Their other major headline of the day was “ 5 Takeaways From The Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate ” .
These “ Takeaways ” were : 1 .
Bloomberg took a punch .
And another punch .
And then another one .
And another one .
… 3 .
Buttigieg and Klobuchar really don ’ t seem to like each other .
… 4 .
The “ Medicare For All ” fight you have definitely heard before isn ’ t going anywhere .
… 5 .
Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That last one was ( complete here ) : Sanders is a leading candidate .
He ’ s rising in the polls .
He looks poised to win the caucuses in Nevada and have a strong showing on Super Tuesday , March 3 .
Sanders faced some difficult subjects .
He was met with familiar attacks on his health care plan and his self-proclaimed democratic socialism .
And he was asked yet again to answer for angry online supporters .
“ We have over 10.6 million people on Twitter , and 99.9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are working people , are people who believe in justice , compassion and love , ” Sanders said .
“ And if there are a few people who make ugly remarks , who attack trade union leaders , I disown those people .
They are not part of our movement.
” But Sanders was doing just as much of the attacking Wednesday .
He came to the debate already a winner of a primary contest and with the momentum behind him .
Seeing how feisty the rest of the field was , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other candidates got that message , too : If things continue as they are , the race could consolidate around Sanders in a couple of weeks .
Or it could be completely up for grabs .
Most of the pundits judge that the debate was won both by Warren ( for her brilliantly prosecutorial treatment of Bloomberg ) and by Sanders ( for his having parried all attacks against himself and benefited by Warren ’ s grilling of Bloomberg without Sanders ’ s having needed to turn some voters off as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nasty job for the benefit of both of them ) .
( Here ’ s a good summary of that viewpoint . )
There is nothing wrong with political articles that are obviously pro or anti ( which HuffPo ’ s are ) , but if there is something misleading in them — which was the case with both of those prominently positioned HuffPo articles — then the article is propaganda and not journalism , and to publish it is to publish and be a propagandist , and not a news-medium .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ news ’ report is to be even more of a propaganda-medium , and less credible and trustworthy by intelligent readers .
The next day , on February 21st , HuffPo led its Home Page with “ Warren Goes After Bloomberg Again , Offers Contract To Release Women From NDAs ” , and right below that lead story was “ Elizabeth Warren Keeps Punching , Seeking To Supercharge Campaign ” ; and both were puff-pieces for her — and not Sanders — to win the nomination .
The top story on the Home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aims For Nev. Supercharge ” .
Nothing puffed Sanders , who , even at that time , swamped each one of his Democratic primary competitors in the Nevada primary polling .
And this wasn ’ t paid advertising for her campaign , even though it might have been coming from ( actually funded by , in salaries to these ‘ journalists ’ and their editors ) some of the same billionaires who had donated money directly to her campaign .
So , it ’ s not only the New York Times and Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and The Nation and Harper ’ s and The New republic and NBC and ABC and CBS and Fox and CNN and MSNBC , etc.
, that are propaganda-operations for the billionaires , but even most of the ‘ progressive ’ ‘ alternative news ’ online sites are .
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
On Thursday, February 20th, the top headline on the Home Page of the Huffington Post website — a mouthpiece for the Democratic National Committee to reach and persuade a largely young and female progressive Democratic electorate — was “Finally, The Real Elizabeth Warren Steps Up: The gloves came off at the Democratic primary debate in Vegas.” The site’s lead article said:
Again and again on Wednesday night, Warren humiliated former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg ― not only by presenting him with his own words but also by pressing him to release an unknown number of women who worked for him from nondisclosure agreements pertaining to sexual harassment. Bloomberg refused.
But Bloomberg wasn’t the only source of her ire. In less than a minute, she pummeled three other opponents ― former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ― on health care.
It praised her throughout as “the Warren who made Wall Street executives wilt at Senate hearings and became a feminist icon on the left for refusing to stop speaking when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried to silence her. It’s the Elizabeth Warren who infuriated President Barack Obama by attacking his trade agenda and assailing his budget deals with Republican leaders.”
It praised her, such as “She speaks loudly and carries a big stick ― frequently against her own party. She was Obama’s chief antagonist over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that ultimately failed due to opposition from progressive Democrats and a sizable block of House Republicans.” Actually, however, she and Sanders both led different aspects of the campaign to sink President Obama’s TPP and TTIP mega-trade treaties, but the article doesn’t even so much as mention Sanders, except with regret at its very end, to say that he might win the nomination instead of her — as if that would be unfortunate.
This sales-pitch was aimed at Democrats who are more progressive than Obama was, and it aims at getting Bernie Sanders voters to switch to supporting Elizabeth Warren instead. If it had been a paid advertisement for Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, it couldn’t have done a more effective job of diminishing Warren’s real opponent, who is the more authentic (and far more widely trusted) progressive, in this electoral contest: Sanders.
If Democratic Party billionaires won’t be able to get Democratic Party voters to vote for their favorites, Buttigieg, Klobucar, Biden, and Bloomberg, then Warren is their backup person, or fall-back Democrat to run against Donald Trump in the Fall, because Sanders is totally unacceptable to them. This is what Sanders really means when he talks about a “revolution”: it’s taking the Democratic Party back from its billionaires, who have controlled it nonstop ever since at least 1992. Even Warren is acceptable to them — only Sanders is not.
The billionaires who control Huffington Post and all of the other major ‘news’ media hire people not only to write such articles but to be editors or producers who will place them on the front page or otherwise at maximum public attention, so as to determine what the public will notice and what they won’t.
Their other major headline of the day was “5 Takeaways From The Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate”. These “Takeaways” were:
1. Bloomberg took a punch. And another punch. And then another one. And another one. …
2. Elizabeth Warren came ready to fight. …
3. Buttigieg and Klobuchar really don’t seem to like each other. …
4. The “Medicare For All” fight you have definitely heard before isn’t going anywhere. …
5. Bernie Sanders isn’t going anywhere either.
That last one was (complete here):
Sanders is a leading candidate. He’s rising in the polls. He looks poised to win the caucuses in Nevada and have a strong showing on Super Tuesday, March 3.
Sanders faced some difficult subjects. He was met with familiar attacks on his health care plan and his self-proclaimed democratic socialism. And he was asked yet again to answer for angry online supporters.
“We have over 10.6 million people on Twitter, and 99.9% of them are decent human beings, are working people, are people who believe in justice, compassion and love,” Sanders said. “And if there are a few people who make ugly remarks, who attack trade union leaders, I disown those people. They are not part of our movement.”
But Sanders was doing just as much of the attacking Wednesday. He came to the debate already a winner of a primary contest and with the momentum behind him.
Seeing how feisty the rest of the field was, it’s clear that some of the other candidates got that message, too: If things continue as they are, the race could consolidate around Sanders in a couple of weeks.
Or it could be completely up for grabs.
Most of the pundits judge that the debate was won both by Warren (for her brilliantly prosecutorial treatment of Bloomberg) and by Sanders (for his having parried all attacks against himself and benefited by Warren’s grilling of Bloomberg without Sanders’s having needed to turn some voters off as being ‘aggressive’ — she did that nasty job for the benefit of both of them). (Here’s a good summary of that viewpoint.)
There is nothing wrong with political articles that are obviously pro or anti (which HuffPo’s are), but if there is something misleading in them — which was the case with both of those prominently positioned HuffPo articles — then the article is propaganda and not journalism, and to publish it is to publish and be a propagandist, and not a news-medium. And to give prominent position to any such ‘news’ report is to be even more of a propaganda-medium, and less credible and trustworthy by intelligent readers.
The next day, on February 21st, HuffPo led its Home Page with “Warren Goes After Bloomberg Again, Offers Contract To Release Women From NDAs”, and right below that lead story was “Elizabeth Warren Keeps Punching, Seeking To Supercharge Campaign”; and both were puff-pieces for her — and not Sanders — to win the nomination. The top story on the Home Page bannered “Warren Fires Up: Aims For Nev. Supercharge”. Nothing puffed Sanders, who, even at that time, swamped each one of his Democratic primary competitors in the Nevada primary polling. And this wasn’t paid advertising for her campaign, even though it might have been coming from (actually funded by, in salaries to these ‘journalists’ and their editors) some of the same billionaires who had donated money directly to her campaign.
So, it’s not only the New York Times and Washington Post and The Atlantic and The Progressive and The Nation and Harper’s and The New republic and NBC and ABC and CBS and Fox and CNN and MSNBC, etc., that are propaganda-operations for the billionaires, but even most of the ‘progressive’ ‘alternative news’ online sites are.
—————
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--2020-02-21--Assange alleges Trump offered him ‘quid pro quo’

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Johanna Ross , journalist based in Edinburgh , Scotland… A revelation in Westminster Magistrate ’ s Court on Wednesday sent shockwaves through the mainstream media .
It is being widely publicised that in 2017 US President Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he was to declare that Russia had not been the source of the DNC hack , which had exposed emails discrediting then presidential candidate , Hillary Clinton .
A lawyer representing Mr Assange , the former Wikileaks editor who faces extradition to the United States , put forward evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2017 , in the early days of Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the US election .
Edward Fitzgerald QC said that the statement from Assange ’ s lawyer described : “ Mr 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 ” .
The deal was allegedly offered a year after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided insight into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign , and proved highly embarrassing and damaging to the presidential nominee .
Clinton allies accused both Wikileaks and Russia at the time of working in cahoots with the Trump campaign .
Although Julian Assange was always reluctant to declare outright that the source was in fact not Russia , due to Wikileaks ’ policy of not naming its sources , a visitor to the Edinburgh office of Sputnik news , back in November 2016 , did just that .
Friend of Assange , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Uzbekistan , told journalists that he had recently been to see Assange , who had assured him that the source of the DNC hack was in fact from within Washington .
He went further to say that he had met the person responsible for the leak , and that it was someone from within the DNC .
The story was then picked up by other news outlets , which spread doubts regarding the Democrats ’ claims of Russia being involved in the hack .
Several former US intelligence analysts , including former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come out publicly and said that the DNC could not have been hacked by Russia , but most likely came from within the DNC itself .
A piece published by Patrick Lawrence titled “ A New Report Raises Big Questions about Last Year ’ s DNC Hack , ” also claimed that for technical reasons , the data that was allegedly downloaded to a hacker could not have been done so in the way suggested because it was downloaded at a much faster rate than would have been possible given the technology available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed it has been said that the data could only have been retrieved internally and loaded onto a device such as a thumb drive .
As for Dana Rohrabacher , he denies offering a ‘ quid pro quo ’ to Assange on behalf of Trump .
He states on his website : ‘ I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange .
I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense…However when speaking with Julian Assange , I told him that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about who actually gave him the DNC emails , I would then call on President Trump to pardon him.
’ Rohrabacher then says that on his return to the US he called General Kelly to say Assange would be prepared to provide information about the DNC emails in exchange for a pardon .
He vouches that he had no further discussions on the matter with anyone from the administration , including President Trump .
The White House , for its part , also strongly denies any such offer was made on behalf of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ‘ The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he ’ s an ex-congressman .
He ’ s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject…It is a complete fabrication and a total lie.
’ Whether or not Rohrabacher was indeed acting on behalf of Trump , the emergence of this story can only be of further detriment to both Trump and the bid to extradite Assange .
Julian Assange , who is currently being held in Belmarsh Prison in the UK , is facing 18 charges in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection to the DNC hack , but instead concern WikiLeaks ’ s publication of diplomatic cables and files detailing illegal atrocities carried out by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq and which were provided to Wikileaks by former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning .
His extradition hearing is due to start on at Woolwich Crown Court on Monday .
There are grave concerns however about the state of Assange ’ s health , with 117 doctors signing an open letter in the medical journal The Lancet this week , calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his ‘ psychological torture and medical neglect ’ .
They state : ‘ Should Assange die in a UK prison , as the UN special rapporteur on torture has warned , he will have effectively been tortured to death…The medical profession can not afford to stand silently by , on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history , while such a travesty unfolds.
’ Recently UK opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn also shared concerns about Assange ’ s plight and called on his extradition to be halted and the European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her opposition to any extradition , citing the ‘ chilling effect ’ it would have on media freedom and human rights .
It remains to be seen whether such pleas will fall on deaf ears .
But with new questions now being raised as to whether Donald Trump did indeed offer Julian Assange a pardon , the timing of these court revelations is significant .
It isn ’ t too much a stretch of the imagination to think that they could impact negatively on the US ’ extradition case .
Boris Johnson will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ special relationship ’ is indeed worth jeopardising Britain ’ s record on press freedom and human rights .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Johanna Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland…
A revelation in Westminster Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday sent shockwaves through the mainstream media. It is being widely publicised that in 2017 US President Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he was to declare that Russia had not been the source of the DNC hack, which had exposed emails discrediting then presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. A lawyer representing Mr Assange, the former Wikileaks editor who faces extradition to the United States, put forward evidence that former US congressman Dana Rohrabacher had visited him in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2017, in the early days of Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the US election.
Edward Fitzgerald QC said that the statement from Assange’s lawyer described: “Mr 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”. The deal was allegedly offered a year after Assange published the DNC troves, which provided insight into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, and proved highly embarrassing and damaging to the presidential nominee. Clinton allies accused both Wikileaks and Russia at the time of working in cahoots with the Trump campaign.
Although Julian Assange was always reluctant to declare outright that the source was in fact not Russia, due to Wikileaks’ policy of not naming its sources, a visitor to the Edinburgh office of Sputnik news, back in November 2016, did just that. Friend of Assange, Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, told journalists that he had recently been to see Assange, who had assured him that the source of the DNC hack was in fact from within Washington. He went further to say that he had met the person responsible for the leak, and that it was someone from within the DNC. The story was then picked up by other news outlets, which spread doubts regarding the Democrats’ claims of Russia being involved in the hack.
Several former US intelligence analysts, including former NSA officer Bill Binney, have also come out publicly and said that the DNC could not have been hacked by Russia, but most likely came from within the DNC itself. A piece published by Patrick Lawrence titled “A New Report Raises Big Questions about Last Year’s DNC Hack,” also claimed that for technical reasons, the data that was allegedly downloaded to a hacker could not have been done so in the way suggested because it was downloaded at a much faster rate than would have been possible given the technology available to such a hacker at the time. Indeed it has been said that the data could only have been retrieved internally and loaded onto a device such as a thumb drive.
As for Dana Rohrabacher, he denies offering a ‘quid pro quo’ to Assange on behalf of Trump. He states on his website: ‘I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense…However when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him.’ Rohrabacher then says that on his return to the US he called General Kelly to say Assange would be prepared to provide information about the DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. He vouches that he had no further discussions on the matter with anyone from the administration, including President Trump. The White House, for its part, also strongly denies any such offer was made on behalf of Trump. Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said: ‘The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman. He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject…It is a complete fabrication and a total lie.’ Whether or not Rohrabacher was indeed acting on behalf of Trump, the emergence of this story can only be of further detriment to both Trump and the bid to extradite Assange.
Julian Assange, who is currently being held in Belmarsh Prison in the UK, is facing 18 charges in the US, none of which are in connection to the DNC hack, but instead concern WikiLeaks’s publication of diplomatic cables and files detailing illegal atrocities carried out by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq and which were provided to Wikileaks by former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. His extradition hearing is due to start on at Woolwich Crown Court on Monday. There are grave concerns however about the state of Assange’s health, with 117 doctors signing an open letter in the medical journal The Lancet this week, calling for an end to what they describe as his ‘psychological torture and medical neglect’. They state: ‘Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN special rapporteur on torture has warned, he will have effectively been tortured to death…The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds.’ Recently UK opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn also shared concerns about Assange’s plight and called on his extradition to be halted and the European Commissioner for Human Rights on Thursday announced her opposition to any extradition, citing the ‘chilling effect’ it would have on media freedom and human rights.
It remains to be seen whether such pleas will fall on deaf ears. But with new questions now being raised as to whether Donald Trump did indeed offer Julian Assange a pardon, the timing of these court revelations is significant. It isn’t too much a stretch of the imagination to think that they could impact negatively on the US’ extradition case. Boris Johnson will now have to decide whether the UK-US ‘special relationship’ is indeed worth jeopardising Britain’s record on press freedom and human rights.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-21--One Monster Is Sentenced To Death, Another To Life

Capital punishment is a subject for which both proponents and opponents argue mostly with their stomachs rather than with their heads .
On the pro side there is the eye for an eye , life for a life brigade , while on the other side there are those who argue it is inhumane , the state has no right to commit murder ( except abortion ) , and what if we execute the wrong person ?
There are though cases in which an accused is convicted of truly abominable crimes on absolutely overwhelming evidence for which execution is surely warranted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a capital punishment option , and of those which do , only Texas uses it with any enthusiasm , hence the expression “ texecute ” and declensions thereof .
Last year there was a grand total of 22 judicial executions in the entire country : 9 of them in Texas ; 3 each in Alabama , Georgia and Tennessee .
One of the most high profile murder trials last year was that of Timothy Jones Junior of South Carolina .
Jones was a father of five : the eldest of his three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one year old .
His eldest son was six .
In August 2014 , he murdered all of them in what was effectively one transaction .
Why ?
He blamed the slaughter on drugs and schizophrenia , as if that somehow mitigated this terrible crime .
Jones is the man in the above photograph without a jacket sitting with two members of his legal team .
He had apparently put on a lot of weight awaiting trial for years sitting in a cell .
There was never any doubt about who committed all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mens rea , which the jury didn ’ t buy , nor did they buy the pleas for mercy from his family , including Amber Kyzer , the woman who gave birth to all five young victims .
Jones was convicted in May and sentenced to death the following month .
The last judicial execution carried out in South Carolina was that of Jeffrey Motts , on May 6 , 2011 .
Motts was the only person it executed that year .
He was serving a life sentence for murdering two elderly people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , in December 2005 , he murdered his cellmate .
It will probably take a decade or more for Jones to be executed , a sorry state of affairs , but all US death penalty convictions are subject to an automatic appeal , and there are some people who have been on death row for more than three decades , which kind of gives the lie to the name .
If Jones is a monster , so is Anthony Pardon for entirely different reasons .
Pardon is a sexual predator of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his life in prison .
His conviction was discussed here last week .
In January 2018 , Pardon murdered Rachael Anderson in Columbus , Ohio on her twenty-fourth birthday after she was hogtied and raped .
Although he pleaded not guilty , the evidence against him was every bit as overwhelming as that against Jones .
His attorney elected not to call a single witness , and Pardon was convicted on all counts .
Then we heard the pathetic mitigation , principally from Bob Stinson , a so-called forensic psychiatrist who treated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sob story about Pardon ’ s childhood and his progression through the criminal justice system .
The prosecution was able to show that Stinson had been taken in by Pardon ’ s lies , and Pardon himself took the stand , something he clearly could not do during the first phase of the trial .
He may well have had a very bad childhood and lack of support on release , but although such factors can be mitigation for theft or robbery , what mitigation can there ever be for an unambiguous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the victim ?
In spite of all this , the jurors were deadlocked on the death penalty , which resulted in Pardon being sentenced to life without parole .
The talking heads were of the opinion that this was due to the ideological opposition of probably one juror to the death penalty .
We can only hope that Pardon does not emulate Jeffrey Motts and murder his cellmate , or even worse a prison staff member .

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.
Capital punishment is a subject for which both proponents and opponents argue mostly with their stomachs rather than with their heads. On the pro side there is the eye for an eye, life for a life brigade, while on the other side there are those who argue it is inhumane, the state has no right to commit murder (except abortion), and what if we execute the wrong person? There are though cases in which an accused is convicted of truly abominable crimes on absolutely overwhelming evidence for which execution is surely warranted.
Not every state in the US has a capital punishment option, and of those which do, only Texas uses it with any enthusiasm, hence the expression “texecute” and declensions thereof. Last year there was a grand total of 22 judicial executions in the entire country: 9 of them in Texas; 3 each in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee.
One of the most high profile murder trials last year was that of Timothy Jones Junior of South Carolina. Jones was a father of five: the eldest of his three daughters was eight, the youngest was one year old. His eldest son was six. In August 2014, he murdered all of them in what was effectively one transaction. Why? He blamed the slaughter on drugs and schizophrenia, as if that somehow mitigated this terrible crime.
Jones is the man in the above photograph without a jacket sitting with two members of his legal team. He had apparently put on a lot of weight awaiting trial for years sitting in a cell. There was never any doubt about who committed all five murders, the only issue was mens rea, which the jury didn’t buy, nor did they buy the pleas for mercy from his family, including Amber Kyzer, the woman who gave birth to all five young victims. Jones was convicted in May and sentenced to death the following month.
The last judicial execution carried out in South Carolina was that of Jeffrey Motts, on May 6, 2011. Motts was the only person it executed that year. He was serving a life sentence for murdering two elderly people including his great aunt when ten years later, in December 2005, he murdered his cellmate. It will probably take a decade or more for Jones to be executed, a sorry state of affairs, but all US death penalty convictions are subject to an automatic appeal, and there are some people who have been on death row for more than three decades, which kind of gives the lie to the name.
If Jones is a monster, so is Anthony Pardon for entirely different reasons. Pardon is a sexual predator of the worst sort who has spent most of his life in prison. His conviction was discussed here last week. In January 2018, Pardon murdered Rachael Anderson in Columbus, Ohio on her twenty-fourth birthday after she was hogtied and raped. Although he pleaded not guilty, the evidence against him was every bit as overwhelming as that against Jones. His attorney elected not to call a single witness, and Pardon was convicted on all counts.
Then we heard the pathetic mitigation, principally from Bob Stinson, a so-called forensic psychiatrist who treated the jury and the live Internet audience to a sob story about Pardon’s childhood and his progression through the criminal justice system. The prosecution was able to show that Stinson had been taken in by Pardon’s lies, and Pardon himself took the stand, something he clearly could not do during the first phase of the trial. He may well have had a very bad childhood and lack of support on release, but although such factors can be mitigation for theft or robbery, what mitigation can there ever be for an unambiguous violent rape followed by the murder of the victim?
In spite of all this, the jurors were deadlocked on the death penalty, which resulted in Pardon being sentenced to life without parole. The talking heads were of the opinion that this was due to the ideological opposition of probably one juror to the death penalty. We can only hope that Pardon does not emulate Jeffrey Motts and murder his cellmate, or even worse a prison staff member.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-22--The SAS Commercial : An Outrageous Definition of Scandinavian Culture

Recently , a controversial commercial from SAS , the Scandinavian airline company , was published on social media .
It attempts to portray Scandinavian culture as basically non-existing .
The message is that because all typical Scandinavian cultural traits and imagery can supposedly be traced to external sources , Scandinavia has “ nothing ” , as the commercial repeats , in many languages .
SAS obviously is trying to be politically correct in these globalist times , in which the Nation is looked down upon .
At the same time it wants to encourage Scandinavians to use SAS to fly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valuable things ( such as meatballs ? )
, so these too may in the future be transformed and become part of what represents Scandinavia .
The main point is not that SAS issued this commercial ; it could have been issued by any number of public institutions in Scandinavia , not least in Sweden , which is the most extreme of the three Scandinavian countries in terms of its embrace of multiculturalism and the denigration of its own national identity .
It is a bit ironic , though , that SAS is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to fly in this politically correct way .
SAS has suffered from the new phenomenon of “ fly shame ” that is trending in Scandinavia .
The goal of “ fly shaming ” is to make people feel guilty when travelling by airplane , because of the impact on the individual carbon footprint .
But to go back to main message in the commercial , it should be difficult to imagine , for example such a commercial by Iberia , the main Spanish airline , trying to prove that there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Romans , the Catholic Church , the Moors , the Visigoths , and a few local ethnic groups .
It is fully possible to argue along such lines .
After all , what would Spanish culture be today if not for the massive contributions from these sources ?
But would the Spaniards ever dream of showing their culture in this light ?
Would the French ?
The Russians ?
Or most other cultures ?
Of course they wouldn ’ t ; because it goes against the basic instinct of being proud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home to see one ’ s culture only as copying others .
Why should Scandinavians then see their own culture in the most belittling way possible ?
Why highlight just the side that diminishes one ’ s own culture , instead of being proud of it and trying to safeguard it ?
Culture and tradition is the fundamental glue that binds and unites a society , and makes living together smoother , simpler and more intuitive .
This is true regardless of the relative value of each culture in comparisons with others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lets it be diffused in a morass of multiculturalism , leads to a citizenry that progressively loses its social bearings .
It is well known that trust between citizens decreases when societies because more culturally mixed .
It is a truism that cultures are a product of interaction , that cultures develop through exchanges with other surrounding cultures .
It is not necessary for SAS to tell us this .
But culture obviously can not be defined as simply the sum of all foreign cultural imports , thereby eliminating any kind of uniqueness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a people ’ s shared experiences and characteristics over the long term .
In this sense , it should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with Scandinavia , that this region has a strong and particular culture , clearly distinct even from other European cultures .
This particular Scandinavian culture was a key factor behind the great economic and social development of Denmark , Norway and Sweden over the last century .
This approach to culture could be emphasized instead , as other cultures naturally do all the time .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being peddled by a small group of trend setters is a political description of culture that SAS and others have been pushing .
It is part of the ongoing and repeated globalist attempts to denigrate and destroy the concept of the Nation in every possible way , including culturally .
The picture painted by the SAS commercial is obviously not the right way of looking at culture , and this can be shown quite easily by pointing at the contradiction that is inherent in the message itself .
For if Scandinavia has “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls its “ culture ” from outside , then these external inputs must have come from cultures , for how could other societies have given anything to Scandinavia if they also have culturally “ nothing ” of its own ?
But if all of these external societies must indeed have cultures , then why does Scandinavia not have a culture ?
This logical knot arises because it is impossible to define culture in the way that is depicted in the SAS commercial .
This commercial is yet another sign of the social and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fashionable elites in Scandinavia , mostly involved in politics , in the public administrations , and in the main stream media .
And it is particularly acute in Sweden .
When a society disparages and undervalues itself in such a way , it is a sign of a deep social and cultural crisis .
In such cases , a period of decadence must be ended by a truly low point , which is then often followed by a cultural and intellectual rebirth .
Let us hope that also will be the case for @ @

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by Finn Andreen…
Recently, a controversial commercial from SAS, the Scandinavian airline company, was published on social media. It attempts to portray Scandinavian culture as basically non-existing. The message is that because all typical Scandinavian cultural traits and imagery can supposedly be traced to external sources, Scandinavia has “nothing”, as the commercial repeats, in many languages. SAS obviously is trying to be politically correct in these globalist times, in which the Nation is looked down upon. At the same time it wants to encourage Scandinavians to use SAS to fly to faraway lands to bring back more valuable things (such as meatballs?), so these too may in the future be transformed and become part of what represents Scandinavia.
The main point is not that SAS issued this commercial; it could have been issued by any number of public institutions in Scandinavia, not least in Sweden, which is the most extreme of the three Scandinavian countries in terms of its embrace of multiculturalism and the denigration of its own national identity. It is a bit ironic, though, that SAS is being unpolitically correct when trying to get people to fly in this politically correct way. SAS has suffered from the new phenomenon of “fly shame” that is trending in Scandinavia. The goal of “fly shaming” is to make people feel guilty when travelling by airplane, because of the impact on the individual carbon footprint.
But to go back to main message in the commercial, it should be difficult to imagine, for example such a commercial by Iberia, the main Spanish airline, trying to prove that there is no Spanish culture; that everything Spanish comes from the Romans, the Catholic Church, the Moors, the Visigoths, and a few local ethnic groups. It is fully possible to argue along such lines. After all, what would Spanish culture be today if not for the massive contributions from these sources? But would the Spaniards ever dream of showing their culture in this light? Would the French? The Russians? Or most other cultures? Of course they wouldn’t; because it goes against the basic instinct of being proud of the uniqueness one’s own home to see one’s culture only as copying others.
Why should Scandinavians then see their own culture in the most belittling way possible? Why highlight just the side that diminishes one’s own culture, instead of being proud of it and trying to safeguard it? Culture and tradition is the fundamental glue that binds and unites a society, and makes living together smoother, simpler and more intuitive. This is true regardless of the relative value of each culture in comparisons with others. A society that disregards its culture and lets it be diffused in a morass of multiculturalism, leads to a citizenry that progressively loses its social bearings. It is well known that trust between citizens decreases when societies because more culturally mixed.
It is a truism that cultures are a product of interaction, that cultures develop through exchanges with other surrounding cultures. It is not necessary for SAS to tell us this. But culture obviously cannot be defined as simply the sum of all foreign cultural imports, thereby eliminating any kind of uniqueness. In reality, a culture comes from a people’s shared experiences and characteristics over the long term. In this sense, it should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with Scandinavia, that this region has a strong and particular culture, clearly distinct even from other European cultures.
This particular Scandinavian culture was a key factor behind the great economic and social development of Denmark, Norway and Sweden over the last century. This approach to culture could be emphasized instead, as other cultures naturally do all the time. The self-deprecation of the Scandinavian culture that is being peddled by a small group of trend setters is a political description of culture that SAS and others have been pushing. It is part of the ongoing and repeated globalist attempts to denigrate and destroy the concept of the Nation in every possible way, including culturally.
The picture painted by the SAS commercial is obviously not the right way of looking at culture, and this can be shown quite easily by pointing at the contradiction that is inherent in the message itself. For if Scandinavia has “nothing” and owes everything that it calls its “culture” from outside, then these external inputs must have come from cultures, for how could other societies have given anything to Scandinavia if they also have culturally “nothing” of its own? But if all of these external societies must indeed have cultures, then why does Scandinavia not have a culture? This logical knot arises because it is impossible to define culture in the way that is depicted in the SAS commercial.
This commercial is yet another sign of the social and intellectual collapse of a small group of fashionable elites in Scandinavia, mostly involved in politics, in the public administrations, and in the main stream media. And it is particularly acute in Sweden. When a society disparages and undervalues itself in such a way, it is a sign of a deep social and cultural crisis. In such cases, a period of decadence must be ended by a truly low point, which is then often followed by a cultural and intellectual rebirth. Let us hope that also will be the case for Scandinavia.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-22--U.S. and Iran Increase Competition to Influence Afghanistan

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… United States officials have expressed concern over the so-called Iranian intervention in Afghanistan in recent days , claiming that Tehran is trying to challenge Washington ’ s interests in Afghanistan through groups that it supports like the Taliban .
General Kenneth Mckenzie , the U.S. Central Commander , came to Kabul after rising threats and concerns over Iran ’ s supposed interference in the Afghan war .
He stayed in Kabul for three days , analyzing the situation and restraining Iran ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupying the country .
Iran ’ s warnings and threats against the U.S. military in Afghanistan is the main agenda of this high-profile military trip to Kabul according to sources .
At the same time , Iranian diplomat Ebrahim Taherian who specializes in Afghan affairs came to Kabul and voiced his country ’ s concerns about recent U.S. actions during a meeting with Afghan leaders .
Following Taherian ’ s trip to Kabul , Tadamichi Yamamoto , the UN special envoy to Kabul , went to Tehran to urge Iranian officials not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S .
The flow of Iranian and U.S. diplomats and troops to Kabul shows that the conflict between the U.S and Iran has certainly spread to Afghanistan , an inevitable outcome since Afghanistan is on Iran ’ s eastern border and hosts thousands of American soldiers .
The U.S. and Iran have been involved in proxy wars for many years in countries in the Middle East , including Iraq , Syria and Lebanon , but surprisingly to a very low level in Afghanistan .
Iran was actually among the countries that supported the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During the Taliban ’ s rule in Kabul , the fundamentalist organization was a major threat to Iran .
In 1998 , the Taliban set fire to the Iranian consulate in Mazar-i-Sharif and killed at least 10 Iranian diplomats .
However , the Islamic Republic ’ s cooperation with the U.S. in Afghanistan led to opposition and hostility .
Iran then sought to secure relations with the Taliban and became a refuge for family members of a number of senior Taliban officials .
More recently , Iranian officials have confirmed their relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were not seeking military and/or arms cooperation with the Taliban and were committed to the principle of government-to-government relations .
But local officials in southwestern Afghanistan have repeatedly spoken of Iran ’ s military and arms cooperation with the Taliban .
Effectively , Iran has many leverages that are challenging and pressuring the U.S .
The presence of at least 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Iran has provided Tehran with a good opportunity to use them to achieve its goal of challenging the U.S everywhere across the region , including Afghanistan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsurprising that it is one of the largest economic and trade partners of the war-torn country .
Economic ties between the two countries have reached $ 4 billion .
Iran has widespread cultural , historical and social influence in Afghanistan .
Nearly 25 % of Afghanistan ’ s population are also Shi ’ ite who have much attachment to Iran .
However , Tehran ’ s contacts in Afghanistan were not limited to Shi ’ ites as demonstrated by Iran ’ s attempts to have relations with all political authorities and social groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep relations with the Afghan political community became clear after the U.S. assassination of Qassim Soleimani , the commander of Iran ’ s famed Revolutionary Guards ’ Quds Force .
Wide and broad partnerships between the two countries provide Tehran with a favorable platform to pursue its goals and programs with open arms in Afghanistan .
When U.S.-Iranian relations reached the level of potential military conflict , Kabul declared that it would not allow its territory to be used against any another country , an indirect reference that Afghanistan will not be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several important military bases on the Iranian border with Afghanistan such as Shindand that could be utilized in any conflict with Iran .
During the period of national unity , Afghanistan ’ s policy of neutrality towards the countries of the region , especially Iran , changed .
The disruption of the balance in foreign policy has prompted the countries of the region to reconsider their support for the Afghan central government .
The end of neutrality in foreign policy was a great opportunity for the Taliban .
They were able to expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region .
This of course does not overlook that Kabul and Tehran are involved in some issues , such as the long running water dispute , drug production and trafficking , and Iran ’ s relations with the Taliban .
However , with the U.S. seeking an agreement with the Taliban and withdrawing from Afghanistan , the escalation of the conflict with the Islamic Republic will certainly have an impact on Washington ’ s goals in the region and in Afghanistan .
The U.S. ensured that Iran was the only neighbor ignored in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true peace can be found in Afghanistan as Iran has thousands of years of relations with Afghanistan .
As a strategic partner of Kabul and Afghanistan ’ s influential neighbour , Iran is affecting the current volatile situation .
Only a balanced and impartial policy can reduce the country ’ s vulnerability , but non-the-less , the U.S. can not ignore Iran ’ s role in finding peace in Afghanistan .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
United States officials have expressed concern over the so-called Iranian intervention in Afghanistan in recent days, claiming that Tehran is trying to challenge Washington’s interests in Afghanistan through groups that it supports like the Taliban. General Kenneth Mckenzie, the U.S. Central Commander, came to Kabul after rising threats and concerns over Iran’s supposed interference in the Afghan war. He stayed in Kabul for three days, analyzing the situation and restraining Iran’s possible actions while meeting with American forces occupying the country. Iran’s warnings and threats against the U.S. military in Afghanistan is the main agenda of this high-profile military trip to Kabul according to sources. At the same time, Iranian diplomat Ebrahim Taherian who specializes in Afghan affairs came to Kabul and voiced his country’s concerns about recent U.S. actions during a meeting with Afghan leaders.
Following Taherian’s trip to Kabul, Tadamichi Yamamoto, the UN special envoy to Kabul, went to Tehran to urge Iranian officials not to involve Afghanistan in their complications with the U.S. The flow of Iranian and U.S. diplomats and troops to Kabul shows that the conflict between the U.S and Iran has certainly spread to Afghanistan, an inevitable outcome since Afghanistan is on Iran’s eastern border and hosts thousands of American soldiers. The U.S. and Iran have been involved in proxy wars for many years in countries in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, but surprisingly to a very low level in Afghanistan.
Iran was actually among the countries that supported the abolition of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. During the Taliban’s rule in Kabul, the fundamentalist organization was a major threat to Iran. In 1998, the Taliban set fire to the Iranian consulate in Mazar-i-Sharif and killed at least 10 Iranian diplomats. However, the Islamic Republic’s cooperation with the U.S. in Afghanistan led to opposition and hostility. Iran then sought to secure relations with the Taliban and became a refuge for family members of a number of senior Taliban officials. More recently, Iranian officials have confirmed their relationship with the Taliban, but they said they were not seeking military and/or arms cooperation with the Taliban and were committed to the principle of government-to-government relations. But local officials in southwestern Afghanistan have repeatedly spoken of Iran’s military and arms cooperation with the Taliban.
Effectively, Iran has many leverages that are challenging and pressuring the U.S. The presence of at least 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Iran has provided Tehran with a good opportunity to use them to achieve its goal of challenging the U.S everywhere across the region, including Afghanistan. As Iran neighbors Afghanistan, it is unsurprising that it is one of the largest economic and trade partners of the war-torn country. Economic ties between the two countries have reached $4 billion. Iran has widespread cultural, historical and social influence in Afghanistan. Nearly 25% of Afghanistan’s population are also Shi’ite who have much attachment to Iran. However, Tehran’s contacts in Afghanistan were not limited to Shi’ites as demonstrated by Iran’s attempts to have relations with all political authorities and social groups in the country. Iran’s deep relations with the Afghan political community became clear after the U.S. assassination of Qassim Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s famed Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force.
Wide and broad partnerships between the two countries provide Tehran with a favorable platform to pursue its goals and programs with open arms in Afghanistan. When U.S.-Iranian relations reached the level of potential military conflict, Kabul declared that it would not allow its territory to be used against any another country, an indirect reference that Afghanistan will not be used to attack Iran. The U.S. has several important military bases on the Iranian border with Afghanistan such as Shindand that could be utilized in any conflict with Iran.
During the period of national unity, Afghanistan’s policy of neutrality towards the countries of the region, especially Iran, changed. The disruption of the balance in foreign policy has prompted the countries of the region to reconsider their support for the Afghan central government. The end of neutrality in foreign policy was a great opportunity for the Taliban. They were able to expand their relations with the countries of the region.
This of course does not overlook that Kabul and Tehran are involved in some issues, such as the long running water dispute, drug production and trafficking, and Iran’s relations with the Taliban. However, with the U.S. seeking an agreement with the Taliban and withdrawing from Afghanistan, the escalation of the conflict with the Islamic Republic will certainly have an impact on Washington’s goals in the region and in Afghanistan. The U.S. ensured that Iran was the only neighbor ignored in the peace talks – meaning that no true peace can be found in Afghanistan as Iran has thousands of years of relations with Afghanistan. As a strategic partner of Kabul and Afghanistan’s influential neighbour, Iran is affecting the current volatile situation. Only a balanced and impartial policy can reduce the country’s vulnerability, but non-the-less, the U.S. cannot ignore Iran’s role in finding peace in Afghanistan.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-22--China will not stop its economic cooperation with Venezuela

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Lucas Leiroz , research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro… China ’ s Foreign Ministry spokesman , Geng Shuang , announced that China will not interrupt its relations with Nicolás Maduro ’ s Venezuela , despite the US government ’ s sanctions on the South American country .
The announcement is not surprising , given the undeniable efforts of the Asian country in terms of international cooperation , but , amid the increased aggressiveness with which American hegemony operates , it represents a true gesture of courage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctions by the United States , China will continue to import Venezuelan oil .
White House Special Envoy , Mr. Elliott Abrams , announced that Washington is taking the necessary steps to convince China to renounce its decision to continue cooperating with Nicolas Maduro ’ s regime .
The American diplomat also announced his country is acting to prevent , not only China , but also India to stop buying Venezuelan oil .
On the other hand , Beijing ’ s official communiqués show unrestricted support for Venezuelan sovereignty and for the legitimacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China stated “ Let the US become aware of the facts , stop abusing sanctions and other coercive measures , work with all parties to find a political solution to the Venezuelan problem [ … ] Cooperation between China and Venezuela will continue to develop , even with the ‘ changes ’ “ .
The Chinese government ’ s actions are not limited to benefiting only Venezuela , but are expanding to a list of other countries .
For instance , this is China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of Russian oil company Rosneft and its subsidiary , Rosneft Trading , which also suffered sanctions from the United States .
Chinese Chancellery spokesman said that “ We are opposed to any interference in the internal affairs of other countries , as well as we are against unilateral sanctions and extraterritorial jurisdiction ” .
Geng emphasized that the principles that guide China in its international relations in case of conflict of interests between States are the same as those set out in the United Nations Charter , which favor negotiation in accordance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the specific case of Venezuela , Geng affirmed the need to prioritize a peaceful and rational dialogue with the government of Nicolás Maduro , not admitting arbitrary sanctions imposed in an unfounded way just to guarantee the interests of the world powers that impose them .
The American custom of violently imposing its interests against any state has been hegemonized in United Nations policies for decades .
What Washington has done – and continues to do – against Havana and Pyongyang clearly demonstrates how far the promotion of boycotts and isolation can go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plans include doing the same with Caracas , boycotting the world trade of Venezuelan oil , with the aim of cutting off the country ’ s main economic tool and aggravating its crisis , throwing millions of citizens into poverty and destabilizing the legitimate and sovereign government of Nicolas Maduro .
In contrast , China demonstrates an interesting and legally correct way of maintaining relations and asserting its interests on the international scenario , maintaining peaceful relations with States , negotiating through safe and dialogical ways and avoiding involvement in coercive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Venezuela , disregard for unfounded punishments against the Russian oil company , fair loans and debt relief in African countries , in addition to a number of other factors , clearly show China ’ s role in building a new legal global civilization , based on good relations between peoples , security and peace between States .
And the result will be the growth of China ’ s economic power and political influence .
However , until tensions in Venezuela subside , many conflicts will be witnessed .
Worsening the situation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and China may be even more distant from a truce .
What remains for the other BRICS countries and for any Nation State that wants to maintain its sovereignty in the globalized world is to follow the Chinese example .
There is no reason to comply with American sanctions against Venezuela when the country has a legitimate government , which , just because it wants to preserve its sovereignty , is humiliated by Washington .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Lucas Leiroz, research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro…
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, announced that China will not interrupt its relations with Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, despite the US government’s sanctions on the South American country. The announcement is not surprising, given the undeniable efforts of the Asian country in terms of international cooperation, but, amid the increased aggressiveness with which American hegemony operates, it represents a true gesture of courage.
This means that, regardless of unilateral sanctions by the United States, China will continue to import Venezuelan oil. White House Special Envoy, Mr. Elliott Abrams, announced that Washington is taking the necessary steps to convince China to renounce its decision to continue cooperating with Nicolas Maduro’s regime. The American diplomat also announced his country is acting to prevent, not only China, but also India to stop buying Venezuelan oil.
On the other hand, Beijing’s official communiqués show unrestricted support for Venezuelan sovereignty and for the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro’s government. The spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China stated “Let the US become aware of the facts, stop abusing sanctions and other coercive measures, work with all parties to find a political solution to the Venezuelan problem […] Cooperation between China and Venezuela will continue to develop, even with the ‘changes’ “.
The Chinese government’s actions are not limited to benefiting only Venezuela, but are expanding to a list of other countries. For instance, this is China’s position in relation to the case of Russian oil company Rosneft and its subsidiary, Rosneft Trading, which also suffered sanctions from the United States. Chinese Chancellery spokesman said that “We are opposed to any interference in the internal affairs of other countries, as well as we are against unilateral sanctions and extraterritorial jurisdiction”.
Geng emphasized that the principles that guide China in its international relations in case of conflict of interests between States are the same as those set out in the United Nations Charter, which favor negotiation in accordance with basic norms of coexistence. Regarding the specific case of Venezuela, Geng affirmed the need to prioritize a peaceful and rational dialogue with the government of Nicolás Maduro, not admitting arbitrary sanctions imposed in an unfounded way just to guarantee the interests of the world powers that impose them.
The American custom of violently imposing its interests against any state has been hegemonized in United Nations policies for decades. What Washington has done – and continues to do – against Havana and Pyongyang clearly demonstrates how far the promotion of boycotts and isolation can go. In fact, the White House’s plans include doing the same with Caracas, boycotting the world trade of Venezuelan oil, with the aim of cutting off the country’s main economic tool and aggravating its crisis, throwing millions of citizens into poverty and destabilizing the legitimate and sovereign government of Nicolas Maduro.
In contrast, China demonstrates an interesting and legally correct way of maintaining relations and asserting its interests on the international scenario, maintaining peaceful relations with States, negotiating through safe and dialogical ways and avoiding involvement in coercive measures anywhere in the world. Cooperation with Venezuela, disregard for unfounded punishments against the Russian oil company, fair loans and debt relief in African countries, in addition to a number of other factors, clearly show China’s role in building a new legal global civilization, based on good relations between peoples, security and peace between States. And the result will be the growth of China’s economic power and political influence.
However, until tensions in Venezuela subside, many conflicts will be witnessed. Worsening the situation, the trade war between the United States and China may be even more distant from a truce.
What remains for the other BRICS countries and for any Nation State that wants to maintain its sovereignty in the globalized world is to follow the Chinese example. There is no reason to comply with American sanctions against Venezuela when the country has a legitimate government, which, just because it wants to preserve its sovereignty, is humiliated by Washington.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


Ukrainian Priests at War Criminals’ Service

World War II ended almost 75 years ago .
The world reviewed the results of this historical catastrophe long time ago dividing its participants into those who were criminals of war and those who fought them .
Ones who helped Nazis to destroy and enslave peoples of Europe were Ukrainian nationalists .
For fairness ’ sake , it should be mentioned that collaborationism took place in all countries that fought against Hitler but because of numerous historical factors it was Western Ukraine where Nazis gained biggest support .
Ukrainian nationalists have always been encouraged and spiritually nourished by the Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bishops Josyf Slipyj and Nykyta Budka held services for the Waffen-SS Galizien ( Halychyna ) Division which , according to the Polish Institute of National Remembrance , committed lots of war crimes including the massacre of 868 Polish citizens in Huta Peniacka .
UGCC Metropolitan Archbishop Andrey Sheptytsky of Galicia personally sent chaplains to the division to improve the soldiers ’ morale .
To be mentioned is that although in 1941 Met .
Sheptytsky along with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Bishop Polycarp Sikorsky of Lutsk supported nationalists ’ attempt to declare an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Third Reich , he didn ’ t urge Ukrainians to join the Waffen-SS Galizien Division or the Ukrainian Insurgent Army ( UPA ) led by Roman Shukhevych , Stepan Bandera ’ s associate .
Bandera ’ s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists ( OUN ) , of whose members the Nachtigall Battalion , formed in 1940 , was responsible for the Jewish pogrom in Lviv in 1941 and urged to kill the “ Polacks , Jews and communists ” .
According to the OUN ’ s main doctrine , the highest priority was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and only after that – “ passive efforts ” against Nazis .
Shukhevych supposed that after the war the Polish could lay claim to Galicia and Transcarpathia and carried out ethnic cleansings of the Polish population .
One of the most famous was the Volhynian slaughter , during which OUN soldiers killed more than 60 thousand Polacks including women and children .
After the Volhynian slaughter , Metropolitan Sheptytsky wrote to Catholic Archbishop Boleslav Twardowsky of Malopolska who was in charge of the Lviv Archdiocese that murders of Polacks were the consequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by “ gangs and runaways wanting to retaliate ” .
After the Soviet Army entered Lviv , Sheptytsky wrote a letter to Joseph Stalin congratulating him and thanking for the consolidation of the Western Ukraine regions .
Unfortunately , within decades of independence , Ukrainians have failed to accept and overcome this past by going beyond colonialism and nationalism as a reaction to this .
Nowadays religious situation in Western Ukraine provide no clear alternative – everything is still complicated and controversial .
UGCC Major Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk claims that Metropolitan Sheptytsky not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ German Nazis but also deserves the title Righteous Among the Nations .
At the same time , UGCC Archbishop-Metropolitan Volodymyr Viytyshyn recently performed a funeral service for the last combatant of an SS division in Ivano-Frankivsk , whose funeral was attended by people in SS uniform .
Members of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine also demonstrate their adherence to the ideas of the Bandera nationalism .
The Church ’ s Primate Epiphanius recently said he is proud to be called a Banderist .
But these were Bandera ’ s ideas which led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nachtigall battalion and the slain of Polacks by the OUN during the Volhynian slaughter .
Metropolitan Epiphanius is backed by OCU clergymen who sang the song “ Bandera is our father , Ukraine is our mother ” during Christmastide .
Stepan Bandera was commemorated by an OCU bishop Viktor Bed who served a litia memorial service on the occasion of the 111th anniversary of the birth of the 20th century Ukrainian nationalism ’ s ideologist .
Also , in August 2019 , Metropolitan Epiphanius and UGCC Major Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk consecrated an OUN-UPA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cemetery near Lviv .
Ironically , Jews killed during the pogrom of 1941 carried out by the Nachtigall battalion are buried in the same cemetery .
Concerns about Nazi associates have been repeatedly expressed by Polish and Israel diplomats .
However , the UGCC and OCU are still trying to involve President Vladimir Zelensky in promoting their dubious views on history and ideologemes .
And as this year ’ s events show , such attempts are somehow successful .
The President ’ s initial call on the necessity to form a positive perception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urge the Ukrainians to find their identity in themselves , in their diversity and achievements , encounters obstacles in internal policy and nationalist organizations exploited by various political powers in their struggle .
It is doubtful that the UGCC and OCU hierarchs don ’ t understand : Vladimir Zelensky ’ s support of such ambiguous figures as Stepan Bandera , Andrey Sheptytsky or Josyf Slipyj is his support of these Churches , which puts an end to his equidistant attitude to all confessions .
Stepping on the path of the nationalist discourse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the young leader would by tied by them and wouldn ’ t be able to come out .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by Nadia Bazuk…
World War II ended almost 75 years ago. The world reviewed the results of this historical catastrophe long time ago dividing its participants into those who were criminals of war and those who fought them.
Ones who helped Nazis to destroy and enslave peoples of Europe were Ukrainian nationalists. For fairness’ sake, it should be mentioned that collaborationism took place in all countries that fought against Hitler but because of numerous historical factors it was Western Ukraine where Nazis gained biggest support.
Ukrainian nationalists have always been encouraged and spiritually nourished by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). Bishops Josyf Slipyj and Nykyta Budka held services for the Waffen-SS Galizien (Halychyna) Division which, according to the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, committed lots of war crimes including the massacre of 868 Polish citizens in Huta Peniacka. UGCC Metropolitan Archbishop Andrey Sheptytsky of Galicia personally sent chaplains to the division to improve the soldiers’ morale. To be mentioned is that although in 1941 Met. Sheptytsky along with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Bishop Polycarp Sikorsky of Lutsk supported nationalists’ attempt to declare an independent Ukrainian state with the help of the Third Reich, he didn’t urge Ukrainians to join the Waffen-SS Galizien Division or the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) led by Roman Shukhevych, Stepan Bandera’s associate. Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), of whose members the Nachtigall Battalion, formed in 1940, was responsible for the Jewish pogrom in Lviv in 1941 and urged to kill the “Polacks, Jews and communists”.
According to the OUN’s main doctrine, the highest priority was fighting against the Polish people and Bolsheviks, and only after that – “passive efforts” against Nazis. Shukhevych supposed that after the war the Polish could lay claim to Galicia and Transcarpathia and carried out ethnic cleansings of the Polish population. One of the most famous was the Volhynian slaughter, during which OUN soldiers killed more than 60 thousand Polacks including women and children.
After the Volhynian slaughter, Metropolitan Sheptytsky wrote to Catholic Archbishop Boleslav Twardowsky of Malopolska who was in charge of the Lviv Archdiocese that murders of Polacks were the consequence of murders of Ukrainians and were committed by “gangs and runaways wanting to retaliate”. After the Soviet Army entered Lviv, Sheptytsky wrote a letter to Joseph Stalin congratulating him and thanking for the consolidation of the Western Ukraine regions.
Unfortunately, within decades of independence, Ukrainians have failed to accept and overcome this past by going beyond colonialism and nationalism as a reaction to this. Nowadays religious situation in Western Ukraine provide no clear alternative – everything is still complicated and controversial. UGCC Major Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk claims that Metropolitan Sheptytsky not only never supported the SS army and German Nazis but also deserves the title Righteous Among the Nations. At the same time, UGCC Archbishop-Metropolitan Volodymyr Viytyshyn recently performed a funeral service for the last combatant of an SS division in Ivano-Frankivsk, whose funeral was attended by people in SS uniform.
Members of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine also demonstrate their adherence to the ideas of the Bandera nationalism. The Church’s Primate Epiphanius recently said he is proud to be called a Banderist. But these were Bandera’s ideas which led to massacres of Jews in Lviv by the Nachtigall battalion and the slain of Polacks by the OUN during the Volhynian slaughter. Metropolitan Epiphanius is backed by OCU clergymen who sang the song “Bandera is our father, Ukraine is our mother” during Christmastide. Stepan Bandera was commemorated by an OCU bishop Viktor Bed who served a litia memorial service on the occasion of the 111th anniversary of the birth of the 20th century Ukrainian nationalism’s ideologist. Also, in August 2019, Metropolitan Epiphanius and UGCC Major Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk consecrated an OUN-UPA fighters monument set up in a Jewish cemetery near Lviv. Ironically, Jews killed during the pogrom of 1941 carried out by the Nachtigall battalion are buried in the same cemetery.
Concerns about Nazi associates have been repeatedly expressed by Polish and Israel diplomats. However, the UGCC and OCU are still trying to involve President Vladimir Zelensky in promoting their dubious views on history and ideologemes. And as this year’s events show, such attempts are somehow successful. The President’s initial call on the necessity to form a positive perception of Ukraine in the world, to urge the Ukrainians to find their identity in themselves, in their diversity and achievements, encounters obstacles in internal policy and nationalist organizations exploited by various political powers in their struggle. It is doubtful that the UGCC and OCU hierarchs don’t understand: Vladimir Zelensky’s support of such ambiguous figures as Stepan Bandera, Andrey Sheptytsky or Josyf Slipyj is his support of these Churches, which puts an end to his equidistant attitude to all confessions. Stepping on the path of the nationalist discourse, accepting the expectations of Bandera followers, the young leader would by tied by them and wouldn’t be able to come out.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-22--An excellent way to distinguish between liberals and conservatives [Video]

Dr Steven Turley has emerged in the last couple years as one of the clearest voices in support of “ the new nationalism ” that appears to be taking shape in many nations all over the world .
This rise of nationalism , populism and traditionalism is revealing the real divide between liberals and conservatives in America and around the world .
Most significantly leading this charge is the Russian Federation , but many nations are coming on board : The United Kingdom , Hungary , Italy , the United States , Australia , and some signs of interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dr Steve delivers a brilliant comparison between the driving forces behind left-wing liberalism / secularism and socialism and the right-wing traditionalist nationalists .
He gets all of the elements , most particularly acknowledging the religious aspect , which is actually foundational to national identity .
The video starts with an analysis of how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is getting primaried in her own district , after only about a year in service .
Even Democrats are mounting a primary challenge to this socialist firebrand .
Dr Turley starts with her , but then goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can the left push , and what , if anything , provides a “ do not pass this point ” boundary for leftist ideology .
He contrasts that with how there are bounds for the right and his explanation is magnificent .
This also obviously serves to explain President Trump ’ s direction and intent , as we have covered repeatedly elsewhere , like my own recent pieces here and here .

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.
Dr Steven Turley has emerged in the last couple years as one of the clearest voices in support of “the new nationalism” that appears to be taking shape in many nations all over the world. This rise of nationalism, populism and traditionalism is revealing the real divide between liberals and conservatives in America and around the world. Most significantly leading this charge is the Russian Federation, but many nations are coming on board: The United Kingdom, Hungary, Italy, the United States, Australia, and some signs of interest in antiglobalism in France.
In this video, Dr Steve delivers a brilliant comparison between the driving forces behind left-wing liberalism / secularism and socialism and the right-wing traditionalist nationalists. He gets all of the elements, most particularly acknowledging the religious aspect, which is actually foundational to national identity.
A little setup:
The video starts with an analysis of how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is getting primaried in her own district, after only about a year in service. Even Democrats are mounting a primary challenge to this socialist firebrand. Dr Turley starts with her, but then goes into the deeper issue – how far can the left push, and what, if anything, provides a “do not pass this point” boundary for leftist ideology. He contrasts that with how there are bounds for the right and his explanation is magnificent.
This also obviously serves to explain President Trump’s direction and intent, as we have covered repeatedly elsewhere, like my own recent pieces here and here.
(And please, read and share the Buttigieg piece – it seems to be too hot to handle, but it is spot on with what needs to be said about this situation.)
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-22--The CoronaVirus story takes a paradigm shift

The Coronavirus story has undergone a paradigm shift , it appears British Columbia ’ s 6th verified case originated in @ @ @ @ @ first confirmed case I have heard of that originated somewhere other than China .
This @ @ @ @ @ way or the other whether the virus is man-made , or something that has occurred @ @ @ @ @ but it is a very troubling development .
Liked it ?
Take a second to @ @ @ @ @ !

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


theduran--2020-02-22--Beware Of Scam Phone Calls

Beware Of Scam Phone Calls

Beware of them , on your landline and on your mobile , wherever you live .
I use the phone very little ; I seldom make calls , and almost all my contact is by e-mail .
On Friday , I received two phone calls , unusually .
Both were scams .
The morning call was from Amazon advising me there was a problem with my Prime account .
My imaginary Prime account .
The later call related to my ISP ; I was warned of dire consequences unless I took decisive action .
Both callers had robot voices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are all aware of scams on-line , but scam merchants have increasingly been harvesting people ’ s phone numbers and conning them , sometimes out of substantial amounts .
These scams can and do work on some surprisingly intelligent people , including lawyers and even police officers .
One lawyer who does not fall for such scams is the American commercial attorney Steve Lehto .
His YouTube channel has over 120 thousand subscribers , and he covers scams both on-line and in the real world .
One scam he mentioned in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of years but has been making a comeback .
The robot caller tries to trick you into saying the word “ Yes ” .
This can then be edited to make it sound as though you have agreed to purchase something , probably something expensive .
This particular scam was aimed initially at the corporate sector where often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing , so someone in the accounts department may end up authorising a payment for goods or services , which can be either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed and over-priced .
Increasingly though , ordinary people have been targeted by this particular scam .
Other phone scams include fake charities , fake police officers , fake taxmen , and many more .
Don ’ t fall for scams .
There are plenty of people warning against them from the aforementioned Steve Lehto , to scam warning boards , to government agencies .

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.
Beware of them, on your landline and on your mobile, wherever you live.
I use the phone very little; I seldom make calls, and almost all my contact is by e-mail. On Friday, I received two phone calls, unusually. Both were scams. The morning call was from Amazon advising me there was a problem with my Prime account. My imaginary Prime account. The later call related to my ISP; I was warned of dire consequences unless I took decisive action. Both callers had robot voices, and I hung up on both.
We are all aware of scams on-line, but scam merchants have increasingly been harvesting people’s phone numbers and conning them, sometimes out of substantial amounts. These scams can and do work on some surprisingly intelligent people, including lawyers and even police officers. One lawyer who does not fall for such scams is the American commercial attorney Steve Lehto. His YouTube channel has over 120 thousand subscribers, and he covers scams both on-line and in the real world. One scam he mentioned in November last year has been around for a couple of years but has been making a comeback. The robot caller tries to trick you into saying the word “Yes”. This can then be edited to make it sound as though you have agreed to purchase something, probably something expensive. This particular scam was aimed initially at the corporate sector where often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, so someone in the accounts department may end up authorising a payment for goods or services, which can be either imaginary or real but are always not needed and over-priced. Increasingly though, ordinary people have been targeted by this particular scam.
Other phone scams include fake charities, fake police officers, fake taxmen, and many more.
Don’t fall for scams. There are plenty of people warning against them from the aforementioned Steve Lehto, to scam warning boards, to government agencies.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report