#the fact that the only statements joe biden has put out today are about the tree of life synagogue shooting and fucking economic inflation

[mymarifae]

can we start assassinating politicians again i liked it when we assassinated politicians

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

SEP 22, 2023

The Senate has confirmed three top defense leaders. Last night it confirmed Air Force General Charles Q. Brown Jr. to replace Army General Mark A. Milley as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he retires at the end of the month. Today, it confirmed General Randy A. George as Army chief of staff and General Eric M. Smith as Marine Corps commandant.

The Senate filled the positions at the top of our military by working around the hold extremist senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) has put on more than 300 military promotions, allegedly because he objects to the government’s policy of providing leave and travel allowance for service members who have to travel to obtain abortions. 

Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post focused on the House Republicans today, though, when she wrote: “The GOP completely gone off its rocker—incapable of passing House spending, ranting and raving at AG, cooking up ludicrous and baseless impeachment, unable to greet Zelensky with joint session. This is not normal. This is egregious. You'd think the reporting would reflect it.”

Indeed, the House Republicans remain unable even to agree to talk about funding the government, let alone actually passing the appropriations bills Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) agreed to four months ago. Today, right-wing extremists in the House blocked a procedural vote over a Pentagon funding bill, keeping what is normally an easily passed bipartisan bill from even reaching the floor for debate. McCarthy acknowledged to reporters that he is frustrated. “This is a whole new concept of individuals who just want to burn the whole place down. It doesn’t work.”

The extremists do indeed appear unconcerned about the effects of their refusal to fund the government, and since they have the five or six votes they need to sink the measures McCarthy wants to pass with only Republican votes, this handful of representatives are the ones deciding whether the government will shut down. 

McCarthy could pass clean funding bills through the House whenever he wishes, but he refuses. To do so would mean working with Democrats, and that would spark a vote to throw him out of the speakership. And so, rather than keep the members in Washington, D.C., to work on the appropriations bills over the weekend, McCarthy recognized he did not have the votes he needs and sent them home.

The extremists are bolstered by former president Donald Trump, who posted on his social media platform today that the Republicans in Congress “can and must defund all aspects of Crooked Joe Biden’s weaponized Government…. This is also the last chance to defund these political prosecutions against me and other Patriots. They failed on the debt limit, but they must not fail now. Use the power of the purse and defend the Country!” 

Experts say shutting down the government would not, in fact, end the former president’s legal troubles, but he is actually doing more than that here: he is trying to assert dominance over the country. As Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said: “Let’s be clear about what the former president is saying here. House Republicans should shut down the government unless the prosecutions against him are shut down. He would deny paychecks to millions of working families & devastate the US economy, all in the service of himself.”

Extremist leader Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) responded to Trump’s statement with his own: “Trump Opposes the Continuing Resolution” to fund the government,” he wrote. “Hold the line.” Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch noted: “House Republicans refuse to fund the government to protect Donald Trump.” 

Trump’s accusation that President Biden is weaponizing the Justice Department against him and others who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election is the opposite of what has really happened. Not only has Biden stayed scrupulously out of the Justice Department’s business—leaving in place the Trump-appointed leader of the investigation into Biden’s son Hunter, for example—but also we received more proof yesterday that it was Trump, not Biden, who weaponized the Justice Department against his enemies. 

Nora Dennehy, who abruptly resigned from former special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, explained in her confirmation hearing to Connecticut’s state supreme court yesterday that she quit because Trump’s Department of Justice was tainted by politics. Before joining the probe, she said, “I had been taught and spent my entire career at [the] Department of Justice conducting any investigation in an objective and apolitical manner.” 

But Trump and his loyalists expected Durham’s investigation to prove that there was a “deep state” conspiracy against him, and then–attorney general William Barr seemed to be working to support that fantasy, even though there was no evidence of it (as shown by the fact the investigation ultimately fizzled). Barr was, she thought, violating DOJ guidelines in his public comments about the investigation and in his consideration of releasing an interim report before the 2020 election.

“I simply couldn’t be part of it,” Dannehy said. “So I resigned.”

The resistance of the extremists to McCarthy’s leadership is spilling over into foreign affairs as well. Today, Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky was in Washington, D.C., where he met with President Biden at the White House and with leaders at the Pentagon, and spoke to a closed-door session for the Senate. But he did not speak to the House of Representatives. While McCarthy met with him privately, the speaker maintained that “we just didn’t have time” for him to address the House. 

As part of their demands, House extremists want to cut funding for Ukraine’s defense. This would, of course, work to strengthen Russian president Vladimir Putin’s hand in his war against Ukraine. Earlier this month, former Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan told MSNBC that it is “absolutely essential” to Putin that Trump win back the White House in 2024. “I think it is Putin's main lifeline in order to find some way to salvage what has been a debacle in Ukraine for him," Brennan said. "If Trump is able to return to the White House...Putin could have a like-minded individual that he can work with, detrimental to U.S. interests certainly and detrimental to Western interests overall.” The intelligence community assesses that Putin worked to help Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections, and is pushing pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine propaganda now.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assured Zelensky that the U.S. will continue to support Ukraine and work with allies and partners to make sure it has the weapons it needs. Lara Seligman of Politico reported today that the Pentagon will continue to fund Ukraine operations even if there is a government shutdown. Military activities deemed crucial to national security can be exempted from being shuttered during a government shutdown.

And finally, 92-year-old Rupert Murdoch announced today that he will be stepping down as chair of his media empire, including both Fox Corporation, which includes the Fox News Channel (FNC), and News Corporation, which owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, among other newspapers. In 1996 the Australian-born mogul launched the Fox News Channel with media specialist Roger Ailes, who had packaged Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon in 1968 by presenting him to audiences in highly scripted television appearances. 

The Fox News Channel initially presented news from a conservative viewpoint, but over time its opinion shows, delivered as if they were news, came to dominate the channel. Those shows presented a simple narrative in which Americans—overwhelmingly white and rural—wanted the government to leave them alone but “socialists” who wanted social welfare programs demanded their tax dollars. Isolated in the fantasy world of FNC, its viewers became such fanatic adherents to right-wing politics that FNC wholeheartedly trumpeted Trump’s Big Lie after he lost the 2020 presidential election because viewers turned away from FNC when some of its personalities acknowledged that Biden had won..

Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters for America, said today that “Murdoch created a uniquely destructive force in American democracy and public life, one that ushered in an era of division where racist and post-truth politics thrive.”  Margaret Sullivan, formerly the Washington Post’s media critic, wrote in The Guardian that FNC was “a shameless propaganda outfit, reaping massive profits even as it attacked core democratic values such as tolerance, truth and fair elections.” Murdoch, she wrote, wreaked “untold havoc on American democracy.”

Murdoch sees it differently. In his resignation letter, he attacked “bureaucracies” who wanted to “silence those who would question their provenance and purpose” and “elites” who “have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class.” “Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth,” he wrote. 

Forbes estimates that their media empire has enabled Murdoch and his family to amass a fortune of more than $17 billion.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[reddancer1]

Heather Cox Richardson

September 21, 2023 (Thursday)

The Senate has confirmed three top defense leaders. Last night it confirmed Air Force General Charles Q. Brown Jr. to replace Army General Mark A. Milley as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he retires at the end of the month. Today, it confirmed General Randy A. George as Army chief of staff and General Eric M. Smith as Marine Corps commandant.

The Senate filled the positions at the top of our military by working around the hold extremist senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) has put on more than 300 military promotions, allegedly because he objects to the government’s policy of providing leave and travel allowance for service members who have to travel to obtain abortions.

Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post focused on the House Republicans today, though, when she wrote: “The GOP completely gone off its rocker—incapable of passing House spending, ranting and raving at AG, cooking up ludicrous and baseless impeachment, unable to greet Zelensky with joint session. This is not normal. This is egregious. You'd think the reporting would reflect it.”

Indeed, the House Republicans remain unable even to agree to talk about funding the government, let alone actually passing the appropriations bills Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) agreed to four months ago. Today, right-wing extremists in the House blocked a procedural vote over a Pentagon funding bill, keeping what is normally an easily passed bipartisan bill from even reaching the floor for debate. McCarthy acknowledged to reporters that he is frustrated. “This is a whole new concept of individuals who just want to burn the whole place down. It doesn’t work.”

The extremists do indeed appear unconcerned about the effects of their refusal to fund the government, and since they have the five or six votes they need to sink the measures McCarthy wants to pass with only Republican votes, this handful of representatives are the ones deciding whether the government will shut down.

McCarthy could pass clean funding bills through the House whenever he wishes, but he refuses. To do so would mean working with Democrats, and that would spark a vote to throw him out of the speakership. And so, rather than keep the members in Washington, D.C., to work on the appropriations bills over the weekend, McCarthy recognized he did not have the votes he needs and sent them home.

The extremists are bolstered by former president Donald Trump, who posted on his social media platform today that the Republicans in Congress “can and must defund all aspects of Crooked Joe Biden’s weaponized Government…. This is also the last chance to defund these political prosecutions against me and other Patriots. They failed on the debt limit, but they must not fail now. Use the power of the purse and defend the Country!”

Experts say shutting down the government would not, in fact, end the former president’s legal troubles, but he is actually doing more than that here: he is trying to assert dominance over the country. As Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said: “Let’s be clear about what the former president is saying here. House Republicans should shut down the government unless the prosecutions against him are shut down. He would deny paychecks to millions of working families & devastate the US economy, all in the service of himself.”

Extremist leader Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) responded to Trump’s statement with his own: “Trump Opposes the Continuing Resolution” to fund the government,” he wrote. “Hold the line.” Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch noted: “House Republicans refuse to fund the government to protect Donald Trump.”

Trump’s accusation that President Biden is weaponizing the Justice Department against him and others who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election is the opposite of what has really happened. Not only has Biden stayed scrupulously out of the Justice Department’s business—leaving in place the Trump-appointed leader of the investigation into Biden’s son Hunter, for example—but also we received more proof yesterday that it was Trump, not Biden, who weaponized the Justice Department against his enemies.

Nora Dennehy, who abruptly resigned from former special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, explained in her confirmation hearing to Connecticut’s state supreme court yesterday that she quit because Trump’s Department of Justice was tainted by politics. Before joining the probe, she said, “I had been taught and spent my entire career at [the] Department of Justice conducting any investigation in an objective and apolitical manner.”

But Trump and his loyalists expected Durham’s investigation to prove that there was a “deep state” conspiracy against him, and then–attorney general William Barr seemed to be working to support that fantasy, even though there was no evidence of it (as shown by the fact the investigation ultimately fizzled). Barr was, she thought, violating DOJ guidelines in his public comments about the investigation and in his consideration of releasing an interim report before the 2020 election.

“I simply couldn’t be part of it,” Dannehy said. “So I resigned.”

The resistance of the extremists to McCarthy’s leadership is spilling over into foreign affairs as well. Today, Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky was in Washington, D.C., where he met with President Biden at the White House and with leaders at the Pentagon, and spoke to a closed-door session for the Senate. But he did not speak to the House of Representatives. While McCarthy met with him privately, the speaker maintained that “we just didn’t have time” for him to address the House.

As part of their demands, House extremists want to cut funding for Ukraine’s defense. This would, of course, work to strengthen Russian president Vladimir Putin’s hand in his war against Ukraine. Earlier this month, former Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan told MSNBC that it is “absolutely essential” to Putin that Trump win back the White House in 2024. “I think it is Putin's main lifeline in order to find some way to salvage what has been a debacle in Ukraine for him," Brennan said. "If Trump is able to return to the White House...Putin could have a like-minded individual that he can work with, detrimental to U.S. interests certainly and detrimental to Western interests overall.” The intelligence community assesses that Putin worked to help Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections, and is pushing pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine propaganda now.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assured Zelensky that the U.S. will continue to support Ukraine and work with allies and partners to make sure it has the weapons it needs. Lara Seligman of Politico reported today that the Pentagon will continue to fund Ukraine operations even if there is a government shutdown. Military activities deemed crucial to national security can be exempted from being shuttered during a government shutdown.

And finally, 92-year-old Rupert Murdoch announced today that he will be stepping down as chair of his media empire, including both Fox Corporation, which includes the Fox News Channel (FNC), and News Corporation, which owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, among other newspapers. In 1996 the Australian-born mogul launched the Fox News Channel with media specialist Roger Ailes, who had packaged Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon in 1968 by presenting him to audiences in highly scripted television appearances.

The Fox News Channel initially presented news from a conservative viewpoint, but over time its opinion shows, delivered as if they were news, came to dominate the channel. Those shows presented a simple narrative in which Americans—overwhelmingly white and rural—wanted the government to leave them alone but “socialists” who wanted social welfare programs demanded their tax dollars. Isolated in the fantasy world of FNC, its viewers became such fanatic adherents to right-wing politics that FNC wholeheartedly trumpeted Trump’s Big Lie after he lost the 2020 presidential election because viewers turned away from FNC when some of its personalities acknowledged that Biden had won..

Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters for America, said today that “Murdoch created a uniquely destructive force in American democracy and public life, one that ushered in an era of division where racist and post-truth politics thrive.” Margaret Sullivan, formerly the Washington Post’s media critic, wrote in The Guardian that FNC was “a shameless propaganda outfit, reaping massive profits even as it attacked core democratic values such as tolerance, truth and fair elections.” Murdoch, she wrote, wreaked “untold havoc on American democracy.”

Murdoch sees it differently. In his resignation letter, he attacked “bureaucracies” who wanted to “silence those who would question their provenance and purpose” and “elites” who “have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class.” “Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth,” he wrote.

Forbes estimates that their media empire has enabled Murdoch and his family to amass a fortune of more than $17 billion.

[msclaritea]

Hunter Biden business associate testifies he has no knowledge of wrongdoing by Joe Biden

WASHINGTON — Hunter Biden’s business associate, Devon Archer, testified before the House Oversight Committee that he has no knowledge that then-Vice President Joe Biden changed U.S. foreign policy to help his son and that he's not aware of any wrongdoing by the elder Biden, according to transcripts of his testimony released Thursday.

“I have no basis to know if he altered policy to benefit his son. … I have no knowledge,” Archer testified in the closed-door hearing earlier this week.

One of the GOP’s key witnesses in its investigation into the Bidens, Archer told lawmakers that Hunter Biden repeatedly used the Joe Biden “brand” to protect Burisma "so people would be intimidated to mess with them" legally and politically. But he quickly added: "On this line of questioning, I have no, like, proof."

Archer also said that he did not disagree with the conclusion that Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy. And Archer testified that he had no knowledge of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden as it related to his son’s business dealings.

“No, I’m not aware of any,” Archer said during his more than five-hour deposition.

The witness also said there were roughly 20 phone calls in which Hunter Biden would put his father on speakerphone in the presence of business associates, but he said that the brief conversations focused on pleasantries like the weather or fishing, not official business.

But Archer testified that those mundane phone calls were meant to convey access and power. Without Hunter Biden, Burisma might not have survived, Archer said.

“I think Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn’t have the brand attached to it. That’s my, like, only honest opinion,” Archer said.

The witness also described two dinners — a birthday dinner and another on the World Food Programme — attended by Hunter and Joe Biden in 2014 and 2015 at Washington’s Cafe Milano. Some foreign business executives and politicians were present, but Archer said Joe Biden didn’t discuss business. Hunter Biden was chairman of the board for World Food Program USA at the time.

Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., released Archer’s 141-page transcript on the same day former President Donald Trump is set to be arraigned at a federal courthouse in Washington for charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The testimony hands Republicans descriptive details about Hunter Biden and more ammunition as they accuse the Justice Department of aggressively prosecuting Trump for multiple crimes while going easy on Hunter Biden on federal tax and other charges.

But the transcripts appear to back up Democrats, including Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who have argued that Comer’s investigation into the Bidens has revealed no direct evidence that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s business dealings, was influenced by them or broke the law.

“Once again, Committee Republicans’ priority investigation into President Biden has failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. On Monday, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former business associate, confirmed in a transcribed interview that President Biden was never involved in Hunter’s business dealings, never profited from such dealings, and never took official action in relation to these business dealings,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, said in a statement.

“The transcript released today shows the extent to which Congressional Republicans are willing to distort, twist, and manipulate the facts presented by their own witness just to keep fueling the far-right media’s obsession with fabricating wrongdoing by President Biden in a desperate effort to distract from Donald Trump’s third indictment and the overwhelming evidence of his persistent efforts to undermine American democracy.”

At one point in the deposition, Archer’s attorney Matthew Schwartz, wanted his client to clarify several points Archer made earlier about the limitations of his knowledge about Joe Biden.

“It is still true that you are not aware that Hunter Biden ever discussed policy with his father, discussed business with his father, influenced American policy for purposes of his business or otherwise caused the Vice President or asked the Vice President to do anything improper, right?” Schwartz asked.

CONGRESSU.S. Capitol Police chief says report of active shooter may have been a 'bogus call'

“That’s my understanding,” Archer replied. 

Goldman, the Democratic lawmaker, participated in the deposition and asked Archer to clarify that Hunter Biden was not necessarily selling access to Joe Biden, then the vice president, but the “illusion of access.”

“So is it fair to say that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access to his father? Goldman asked. 

“Yes,” Archer replied, adding that the Biden son and father spoke almost daily “but nothing of material was discussed.”

Earlier in the deposition, Archer told Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., “It’s fair to say” that when he refers to Hunter Biden selling the Biden “brand” he is referring to the Joe Biden brand. But then, later in the deposition, after a break and conferring with his counsel, Archer said Hunter Biden was creating the appearance of access to Washington in general.

“Overall, it’s the appearance to all of D.C.,” Archer said.

The Trump family is briefly mentioned during Archer’s testimony. After questioning from Goldman, Archer recalled he did once “play behind” Donald Trump in golf. Trump approached him at the clubhouse and said he did not like Archer’s athletic shorts.

“Would you say that Donald Trump’s children benefit from their last name being Trump?” Goldman asked.

“I would speculate to say, yes,” Archer replied.

In a statement Thursday afternoon, a White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations blasted House Republicans, saying they "keep promising bombshell evidence to support their false, ridiculous attacks against the President, but time after time, they keep failing to produce any."

"In fact, even their own witnesses are debunking their allegations," Ian Sams said.

Scott Wong

Scott Wong is a senior congressional reporter for NBC News.

[opedguy]

Spartz Tells Truth About Zelensky

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), July 17, 2022.--Rep. Victoria Spartz (Ind.), 43, exposed the elephant in the room about the Ukraine War.  Spartz doesn’t think that 45-year-old Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky really understands the magnitude of the conflict, continuing boast about turning back the Russian army in the first few days of the conflict to conquering Kiev.  Spartz wants more oversight in terms to the astronomical amounts of arms-and-cash sent to Kiev to fund the bankrupt Ukrainian government and prosecute the war effort against the Russian Federation/  President Joe Biden, 79, views the conflict today as a U.S. proxy war using Ukrainian troops against the Russian Federation.  Biden has been vocal about saying March 26 in Warsaw, Poland that that 69-year-old Russian President Vladimir Putin should not remain in power.  Biden’s gaffe was backed April 26 by 69-year-old Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

Austin told an audience in Ramstein, Germany that the aim of the U.S. war in Ukraine was to degrade the Russian army to the point it could no longer wage war.  Pentagon officials, including Putin, got the message that the Kremlin now fights an existential war against the United States. Republicans in the House and Senate worried about Spartz’s public remarks, fearing it could weaken the resolve shared by Western nations to back Zelensky’s war effort.  Spartz, the only Ukrainian-born member of Congress, opened a can of worms for the GOP, currently in lockstep with Biden on the war against the Russian Federation.  Democrats and Republicans alike worry that Spartz’s criticism of the Ukraine War could lead to cracks in the airtight coalition that wins the backing of Democrats and Republicans.  If the Ukraine War continues unabated, it will become a 2024 campaign issue.

Biden’s White House has done everything to minimize the damage from the Ukraine War to the U.S. and EU economies, currently plagued with hyperinflation, especially oil shortages and skyrocketing gas prices.  Biden hasn’t figured out that boycotting Russian oil, 10% of the  world’s oil supply, created the hyperinflation and skyrocketing pump prices.  “Her naiveness is hurting our own people,:” said an unnamed Republican lawmaker on the House Foreign Affairs committee.  “It is not helpful to what we’re trying to do and I’m not sure her facts are accurate . . . We have vetted these guys,” referring to Zelensky and others in his Cabinet.  Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said July 12 that Ukraine will not cede any territory to the Russian Federation. Since prosecuting the war since Feb. 24, Zelensky and Kuleba have lost over 25% of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, including the entire Black Sea coast.

Kuleba’s statement rejecting any call of cede territory to Putin, doesn’t recognize the fact that Ukraine had no control before Feb. 24 of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea before the war started Feb. 24.  But since Zelensky and Kuleba prosecuted the war, they have lost over 25% of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, including all the Black Sea coast and strategic ports.  Zelensky and Kuleba keep asking Biden for more lethal weapons, since Biden refused to put U.S. boots on the ground.  “President Biden has to stop playing politics, have a clear strategy and align security assistance with our strategy,” Spartz said, irking Republican and Democrat lawmakers.  No one in the U.S. or EU accepts that Biden’s unrealistic strategy is to degrade the Russian army and topple Putin’s government.  Sparts doesn’t see Biden’s current strategy as a real plan but a suicide mission for Ukraine.

Spatrz raised real questions about Zelensky’s leadership, knowing that he lost so much Ukrainian sovereign territory.  “President Zelensky has to stop playing politics and theater, and start governing to better support his military and local governments,” Spartz said, prompting more criticisms by Republicans and Democrats.  Biden thought he could steamroll the Ukraine War, making it seems as a life-and-death struggle between tyranny and democracy.  Western lawmakers like hearing Ukraine paints itself as the protector of democracy under attack by Putin and the Russian Federation.  Spartz is the first to recognize that Zelensky’s all about PR and theater but obviously has not succeeded as a wartime president seeking to defend against a brutal enemy.  Spartz hit a raw nerve for Democrats and Republicans because she’s questioning the advisability of taking on the Russian Federation.

Spartz’s raises some inconvenient truths about the Ukraine War, namely, that Zelensky and Kuleba have lost a massive amount of Ukrainian territory fighting, as Spartz says, the biggest war since WW II.  Spartz sees Zelensky fighting a PR battle to turn the world against the Russian Federation.  With China, India, Brazil, South Africa and other countries playing it neutral, not wanting to take sides, it’s left Biden out on the limb trying to impose crippling sanctions.  Biden’s Russian oil boycott has backfired badly on Western countries, causing shortages and skyrocketing prices.  White House officials don’t want anyone, like Sparts, questioning the Ukraine War strategy. Spartz doesn’t see battling against the Russian Federation as a viable strategy.  Spartz has been roundly criticized by Zelensky for not 100% rubber stamping Ukraine’s strategy of degrading the Russian army and toppling Putin.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlinecColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[gstqaobc]

FROM THE MONARCHIST LEAGUE OF CANADA

As this Ecomm went to publication, we received word of the death, at the great age of 96, of Bill Silver, a significant benefactor of the League from its early days, and for many years a pillar of our Ottawa Branch.  We wished to remember him here: his ebullient spirit, fierce loyalty spoken gently, innate modesty and kindness.  Indeed Chaucer might have had forethought of Bill in describing one of his characters as a “very parfitt gentle knight.” May his ardent spirit rest in peace, and his memory be a blessing and example to us all.   LEAGUE ISSUES NEW FLYER: THE CASE FOR THE CROWN The League thought it timely and useful to issue, offer in its advertising and distribute as widely as possible - both via the website and in printed form - a new flyer which will give you, our members, ammunition to argue logically the case for the Crown in conversation with others, and, we hope, to distribute strategically. One never knows when such an item, left on a waiting room table at the doctor or dentist’s office, affixed to a supermarket or other community bulletin board, put through neighbours’ mail slots - the possibilities are many - will do good work for our cause. We hope you will both enjoy and profit from this item, and that many thousands will be distributed across the country. See item one in the WHAT CAN I DO FOR THE CANADIAN CROWN? section of this Ecomm, below, to read online and request printed copies.   And special thanks to our wonderful team of no less than seven translators, all francophones from La Belle Province, who so kindly volunteered to make the French version one that is accurate in expression and eloquent in its prose.                     WHAT CAN I DO FOR THE CANADIAN CROWN? Some suggestions for member activity during these times. We invite members to send additional ideas by return of email. 1.    How about asking the League to send you several print copies of our new flyer:  THE CASE FOR THE CROWN, or print them on your home computer:  https://www.monarchist.ca/index.php/publications and give them to others who may be unaware or sceptical of the importance of Canada’s constitutional monarchy, or even hostile to it. School teachers could be encouraged to read the League’s educational booklets, also available both online and in print at the same URL, or even to request a class set.   2.    When you read an editorial, opinion column or letter to the editor in a newspaper, or a tweet or Facebook post, critical of the Crown, don’t get mad - get even! In other words, use a temperate tone and logical argument to refute the writer’s attack.  Keep it brief: focus on the obvious flaws in reasoning, mis-statements of fact or name-calling substituting for logic.  Same goes for radio talk shows. In the long run, on all media, whatever the provocation, whatever the momentary satisfaction of ”giving them a piece of my mind” - an old adage remains true: “You catch more flies with honey.” 3.    Write your elected representative at the federal level to re-state briefly the reasons you support constitutional monarchy as our system of government,  and asking the MP whether not your view is shared. 4.    Once pandemic restrictions ease, try to make sure that Royal events - such as the upcoming 95th birthday of our Queen, 10th Wedding Anniversary of William and Catherine or 100th birthday of Prince Philip are celebrated both in your home but also among your wider family, your friends, your colleagues at the office,  your place of worship/faith community or service club. The League generally sends you some ideas to mark these celebrations. Remember, as they are incorporated into family life and public life, the     Crown becomes further embedded in the heart of the nation, and truly represents The Queen’s wish that it ”reflects all that is best and most admired in the Canadian ideal.” This is especially true when you go out of your way to include in your observance the newest members of our Canadian family, who generally are eager to participate in the traditions of their new homeland, and in turn to share their own traditions with the wider community. 5.    Always use a Queen stamp when you write a letter or pay a bill by mail. 6.     At events of ceremony, whether a Council meeting, a graduation, a civic celebration - whatever - make sure that the Royal Anthem is sung as well as the National Anthem. To the extent you can, discourage event organizers from having a soloist “perform” them. Far more pride and         learning develop from the untrained voices of loyal folk singing together. In that way, the Anthems are sung “with heart and voice” and not merely listened to.   A FINAL IDEA: AN ACT OF LOVING SUPPORT & THANKS Apart from the above, we think it would be enormously comforting and supportive for every one of us to  write a kind letter to The Queen, expressing your thoughts at a difficult time: her beloved husband ailing, a grand-child chiding other family members via sensational television, the drumbeat of the tabloids and the restrictions on her busy life caused by the pandemic.  A selection of letters, especially those from Commonwealth Realms, are indeed seen by The Queen - and their number and tone are summarized to Her Majesty. The address is - Her Majesty The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA, UK Theoretically you don’t need postage to write the Sovereign; in practice, it is safer to affix the international airmail stamp available from your local Canada Post outlet.   AN INTERESTING OPINION PIECE FROM TODAY’S DAILY TELEGRAPHWe thought you might be interested to see the following strongly-worded opinion piece, reflecting a good deal of the tone of recent British public opinion, rather different from much of the Canadian and US commentary. Meghan’s fake interview has real-world effects The Sussexes’ claims have undermined the monarchy and done lasting damage to the Commonwealth by Tim Stanley, March 15, 2021 Two headlines appeared on the BBC News website on the same day. At the top: “Harry and Meghan rattle monarchy’s gilded cage”. At the bottom: “The kidnapped woman who defied Boko Haram”. Well, that puts the Sussexes' problems in perspective, doesn’t it? Yet across Africa, one reads, the Duchess’s story has revived memories of colonial racism, tarnishing the UK’s reputation, and has even lent weight to the campaign in some countries to drop the Queen as head of state. The only nation that seems to think a lot of nonsense was spoken is Britain. In the wake of an interview that Joe Biden’s administration called courageous, British popular opinion of Harry and Meghan fell to an all-time low, and the American format had a lot to do with it. Oprah Winfrey is not our idea of an interviewer. She flattered, fawned and displayed utter credulity. Imagine if it had been her, not Emily Maitlis, who interviewed Prince Andrew over the Jeffrey Epstein allegations. “You were in a Pizza Express that day? Oh my God, you MUST be innocent! Tell me, in all honesty, though...did you have the dough balls?” This wasn’t an interview, it was a commercial for a brand called Sussex, a pair of eco-friendly aristo-dolls that, if you pull the string, tell their truth – which isn’t the truth, because no one can entirely know that, but truth as they perceive it. “Life is about storytelling,” explained Meghan, “about the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we’re told, what we buy into.” Meghan is a postmodernist. Just as Jean Baudrillard said the Gulf War never happened, but was choreographed by the US media, so the Royal narrative she was forced to live was fake, her public happiness was fake and, following that logic, this interview might involve an element of performance, too. People have challenged her claims, alleging contradictions and improbabilities, but one of the malign effects of wokeness is that you have got to be very careful about pointing this out. Why? Because wokery insists on treating a subjective view as objective truth, or even as superior, because it’s based upon “lived experience”. To contradict that personal perspective is perceived as cruel, elitist and, in Meghan’s case, potentially racist, so it’s best to wait a few weeks to a year before applying a fact check. In the meantime, affect sympathy. People would rather you lied to their face than tell them what they don’t want to hear. The result is profoundly dishonest, for I have never known an event over which there is such a gulf between the official reception, as endorsed by the media and politics, and the reaction of average citizens, who are wisely keeping it to themselves. Into that vacuum of silence steps not the voice of reason but bullies and showmen – like Piers Morgan, who said some brash stuff about Meghan’s honesty and, after an unseemly row on Good Morning Britain, felt obliged to resign from his job.  “If you’d like to show your support for me,” he wrote afterwards, “please order a copy of my book.” Dear Lord, was this row fake, too? I can no longer be sure, though I despised Good Morning Britain before and still do: it embodies the cynical confusion of emotion and fact, a show made for clicks, where even the weatherman has an opinion. So what is real in 2021? The Commonwealth, which does a lot of good in a divided world. The monarchy, which has been at its best during the pandemic, doing the boring stuff of cutting ribbons and thanking workers that, one suspects, Meghan never grew into (can you imagine her opening a supermarket in Beccles?). It contains flawed people, but that only adds to its realness, and they can adapt faster than you might think. Prince William got the ball rolling by telling reporters, who he is trained to ignore, that his family is not racist. His wife paid her respects to the murder victim Sarah Everard, demonstrating that she is neither cold nor silenced. I’d wager Kate does her duty, day after day, no complaint, not because she is “trapped”, as Harry uncharitably put it, but because she loves her family and believes in public service. Meghan and Harry have indeed prompted the Royal family to change: not in order to endorse their criticisms, however, but to answer them.

GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿

[seymour-butz-stuff]

Thanks in no small part to organizers on the ground, relentless marches and peaceful protests calling for justice continued pressure on our justice system from all sectors of society, and video evidence of the crime, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has been convicted of the murder of George Floyd. The results of the Chauvin case would have been easily predictable were it not for the long-standing history of systemic racism in our country. It is a history filled with extrajudicial killings of people of color, predominantly Black American men, by our law enforcement apparatus and ultimately sanctioned by our justice system. Chauvin’s conviction does not change the past and whether or not it marks a long-fought pivot toward a universal justice for all Americans, regardless of race, will take decades to inform.

One thing that the Chauvin case has done is put right-wing organizations and conservative folks back on their heels. This is not the result they expected, even if they know it is the correct judgement. The thorny spot they find themselves in is one where an institution that they have blindly defended to keep a certain type of white supremacist law and order in place has returned a judgement on a foot-soldier in this racist system. A police officer doing something that has been done time and time again—killing an unarmed citizen—has been judged and punished as the crime it is. No one is taking it harder than the water-logged mind of Tucker Carlson.

The day Derek Chauvin was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter in the killing of George Floyd, Carlson went on his show to imply that the convictions were politically motivated and that we should no longer discuss the systemic issues that led to the death of Floyd. Most importantly, Carlson wanted everyone to understand what was really lost in today’s judgement: this was a victory for liberals in their war on (white) civilization.

Carlson began his show with the sped-up drivel we have come to expect from him, saying that “the jury in the Chauvin trial came to a unanimous and unequivocal verdict this afternoon please don't hurt us.” Explaining that “everyone understood perfectly well” that there would be mob rule in our cities if the jury had not come to this conclusion. The conclusion—based on numerous witnesses, multiple cameras’ video footage, and medical experts’ testimony—is not the result of this avalanche of evidence, according to Tucky, it’s politics. And for Carlson, “politics” means liberal culture war to destroy and replace white Americans.

Then Carlson pivots the only way a vapid-minded bigot and coward can, by saying that Chauvin, depending on sentencing, could spend the rest of his life in prison, wondering aloud “Is the officer guilty of the specific crimes for which he was just convicted? We can debate all that and over this hour we will.” Spoiler alert: He won’t, and he doesn’t. This is where Carlson gives his rhetorical straw-man argument for the night, saying that “we can’t debate,” that the “mob has the right to destroy our cities not under any circumstances not for any reason.” That’s a good thing because no one was ever debating that except Carlson. And he finished by equating the public outcry and support for Floyd and his family with “an attack on civilization.”

In fact, you can go back and watch Carlson debate that very thing, saying that the mob indeed has the right to destroy our cities, back on Jan. 6, 2021, during the Capitol building insurgency. He remembered to bring up this debate just three weeks ago on his vacuum-sealed television program.

Carlson then goes on to argue that politicians like Rep. Maxine Waters, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and even President Joe Biden influenced this decision with their statements about Chauvin’s guilt. “No politician or media figure has the right to intimidate a jury.” Spoiler alert: Barf. Before we point out that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi spoke after the Chauvin decision was handed down, let’s remember how Donald Trump—the president of the United States at the time—spoke out publicly in defense of fraudster Paul Manafort while the jury was deliberating on one of his cases, saying the case was “very sad,” and that Manafort was a “very good person.”

https://twitter.com/Scout_Finch/status/1384687884452732929

Carlson’s show proceeded to have guests on to “discuss” everything but the guilt of Derek Chauvin. First up was a very British-sounding reporter from the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post saying some of the same. Then Candice Owens—the intellectual equivalent of a methane leak—came on to demand that everyone be thrown in jail who isn’t a regular on Carlson’s show. Finally, after all of that wheel turning, Carlson had on Ed Gavin, a former New York City law enforcement official to talk about Chauvin’s actions against Floyd. It was supposed to be what passed for analysis of why the Chauvin conviction was excessive, but sadly for Carlson, Gavin thought that “the verdict was just,” calling Chauvin’s treatment of Floyd “pure savagery.”

Carlson attempts to turn the case into a conversation about police being afraid to arrest people and “the mob” looting the world. Gavin very clearly says that he isn’t arguing against the need for police to protect the public from bad actors, he’s saying that in this very specific case, it is clear that the police had handcuffed and “subdued” Floyd and then killed him. That’s not right. In fact, it is murder. Carlson, unable to argue facts, and not intelligent enough to use rhetoric to get his way around this, loses his nonexistent cool.

You can see and feel Carlson, clearly reddening with the humiliation he feels when things don’t go his way, as he tries to make his point through the uncomfortable smiling face of a truly underdeveloped emotional inner-world:

TUCKER CARLSON: The guy who did it looks like he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison, so I'm kind of more worried about the rest of the country, which thanks to police in-action, in case you haven't noticed, is like boarded up. So that's more of my concern but I appreciate you coming on Ed Gavin, thank you.

But he isn’t thanking Gavin at all. As they cut away, a clearly angry Carlson says “Nope. Done.” It’s pretty gross.

When your entire intellectual rationalization of our white supremacist judicial system is based on the belief that law enforcement is always right, and that the judicial system makes correct judgements, it is quite the conundrum when that very system reports back to you that it is racist.

[reading-writing-revolution]

August 3, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 4

First, let’s get the obvious out of the way: former president Trump has raised $102 million since he left office, but aside from a recent donation of $100,000 to his chosen candidate in a Texas race which is not yet in the public disclosures (she lost), has spent none of it on anything or anyone but himself. Since January, he has convinced donors to fund his challenge to Biden’s election and to fund Trump-like candidates in the midterm elections. But election filings and a release of donors to the Arizona “audit” show he has not put any money toward either. So far, about $8 million has gone to the former president’s legal fees, while funds have also gone to aides.

The second piece of news that is surprising and yet not surprising is an ABC story revealing that on December 28, 2020, the then-acting pro-Trump head of the civil division of the Department of Justice, Jeffrey Clark, tried to get then–acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue to sign a letter saying: “The Department of Justice is investigating various irregularities in the 2020 election for President of the United States. The Department will update you as we are able on investigatory progress, but at this time we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

It went on to say, “While the Department of Justice believe[s] the Governor of Georgia should immediately call a special session to consider this important and urgent matter, if he declines to do so, we share with you our view that the Georgia General Assembly has implied authority under the Constitution of the United States to call itself into special session for [t]he limited purpose of considering issues pertaining to the appointment of Presidential Electors.”

The letter then made the point clearer, saying the Georgia legislature could ignore the popular vote and appoint its own presidential electors.

This is classic Trump: try to salt the media with the idea of an “investigation,” and then wait for the following frenzy to convince voters that the election was fraudulent. Such a scheme was at the heart of Trump’s demand that Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky announce an investigation into Hunter Biden, and the discrediting of 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton over an investigation into her use of a private email server.

In this case, Donoghue and Rosen wanted no part of this antidemocratic scheme. Donoghue told Clark that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election and wrote: “There is no chance that I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this.” Rosen agreed, saying “I am not prepared to sign such a letter.”

The less obvious story today is the more interesting one.

Trump and his loyalists feed off Americans who have been dispossessed economically since the Reagan revolution that began in 1981 started the massive redistribution of wealth upward. Those disaffected people, slipping away from the secure middle-class life their parents lived, are the natural supporters of authoritarians who assure them their problems come not from the systems leaders have put in place, but rather from Black people, people of color, and feminist women.

President Joe Biden appears to be trying to combat this dangerous dynamic not by trying to peel disaffected Americans away from Trump and his party by arguing against the former president, but by reducing the pressure on those who support him.

A study from the Niskanen Center think tank shows that the expanded Child Tax Credit, which last month began to put up to $300 per child per month into the bank accounts of most U.S. households with children, will primarily benefit rural Americans and will give a disproportionately large relative boost to their local economies. According to the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, “the...nine states that will gain the most per capita from the expanded child allowance are all red states.”

The White House noted today that the bipartisan infrastructure deal it has pushed so hard not only will bring high-speed internet to every household in the U.S., but also has within it $3.5 billion to reduce energy costs for more than 700,000 low-income households.

Also today, after pressure from progressive Democrats, especially Representative Cori Bush (D-MO), who led a sit-in at the Capitol to call for eviction relief, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that in counties experiencing high levels of community transmission of Covid-19, it is extending until October 3 the federal moratorium on evictions that ended this weekend. It is doing so as a public health measure, but it is also an economic one. It should help about 90% of renters—11 million adults—until the government helps to clear the backlog of payments missed during the pandemic by disbursing more of the $46 billion Congress allocated for that purpose.

Today, the president called out Republican governors who have taken a stand against mask wearing and vaccine mandates even as Covid-19 is burning across the country again. Currently, Florida and Texas account for one third of all new Covid cases in the entire country, and yet their Republican governors, Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott, are signing legislation to keep Floridians and Texans unmasked and to prevent vaccine mandates. Biden said that he asks “these governors, ‘Please, help.’ But if you aren’t going to help, at least get out of the way of the people who are trying to do the right thing. Use your power to save lives.”

At a Democratic National Committee fundraiser last night, Biden told attendees that Democrats “have to keep making our case,” while Republicans offer “nothing but fear, lies, and broken promises.” “We have to keep cutting through the Republican fog,” he said, “that the government isn't the problem and show that we the people are always the solution.” He continued, “We've got to demonstrate that democracies can work and protect.”

—-

Notes:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/03/trump-spending-millions-gop-candidates-502233

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-backed-candidate-ballot-us-house-runoff-texas-2021-07-27/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-officials-rejected-colleagues-request-intervene-georgias-election/story

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/02/gop-scamming-rural-trump-voters-continues-new-study-shows-latest/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/08/03/fact-sheet-top-10-programs-in-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-that-you-may-not-have-heard-about/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/03/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic/

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0803-cdc-eviction-order.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/cdc-will-extend-the-federal-eviction-moratorium-through-oct-3.html

https://news.yahoo.com/dnc-fundraiser-biden-accuses-gop-123000070.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/02/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-virtual-fundraising-reception-for-the-democratic-national-committee/

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/03/cori-bush-eviction-crisis-502313

Cheryl

Aug 4

Just two things. I live in a rural red county in Virginia. I have always been astounded that folks here predominantly vote Republican against their best interests.

To get votes here, Democrats HAVE to make two things clear. First and foremost - that Democrats are not "coming to take people's guns away." That is the biggest fear out here in red country - the predominant reason folks vote Republican. Gun control is a vote killer and will be until Democrats out maneuver the NRA - and make crystal clear that great-granddaddy's hunting rifle is not at risk.

Second. ALL of the folks here benefiting from social welfare DO NOT associate that money as coming from programs supported by Democrats. That is "my govamint check" - and the government in their minds is Republican. The Democrats must inundate rural areas with advertising that clearly links child care money and internet services with Biden and the Democratic Party in conjunction with exposing Republicans who vote against the bill. Persistent Hard Ball is the only thing that is going to work here.

The former president will continue to “run” for president as long as the money keeps rolling in. Doubtless, as far as he’s concerned, the money is his to do as he pleases. The accounts should be closely monitored by DoJ and charges should be filed for any improper use of the funds.

Just now the thought came to mind that any of the donated funds spent on personal expenses, including legal defense fees, qualifies as income and should be subject to income taxes. Those taxes would be yet more personal expenses that could not be paid from political donations.

The tax man is going to be the one that gets him.

© 2021 Heather Cox Richardson. See privacy, terms and information collection notice

[newstfionline]

Wednesday, May 5, 2021

AP-NORC poll: Government should help Americans age at home (AP) A majority of Americans agree that government should help people fulfill a widely held aspiration to age in their own homes, not institutional settings, a new poll finds. There’s a surprising level of bipartisan agreement on some proposals that could help make that happen, according to the late March survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. For example, 63% favor more funding to help low-income people age at home, a policy reflected in President Joe Biden’s stimulus plan and his COVID-19 relief law. That includes about half of Republicans and about three-quarters of Democrats. Overall, only 10% are opposed. Behind it all is a deep desire among Americans to maintain their independence in an aging society.

Widespread Commodity Shortages Raise Inflation Fears (NYT) Commodity shortages are rippling across the United States economy as growing demand for housing, cars, electronics and other goods runs up against supply chain congestion and high tariffs left behind by former President Donald J. Trump. The shortages—and the price increases they are eliciting—are being watched closely by the Biden administration, which is under increasing pressure from industry groups and businesses to take steps to ease them. Automakers want the White House to help them get the semiconductors they need to make cars, while the housing industry is asking for tariff relief. Pressure to intervene could intensify as the administration pushes for a multitrillion-dollar infrastructure investment package that includes money for building roads, bridges and electric vehicle charging stations—all of which could become increasingly expensive if prices keep rising.

Heeding complaints, Biden lifts refugee cap to 62,500 (Reuters) U.S. President Joe Biden said on Monday he has resurrected a plan to raise refugee admissions this year to 62,500 after drawing a wave of criticism from supporters for initially keeping the refugee cap at a historically low level. Soon after taking office in January, Biden pledged to ramp up the program but then surprised allies when he opted to stick with the lower cap out of concern over bad optics, given the rising number of migrants crossing the U.S. southern border with Mexico, U.S. officials have said. But the refugee program is distinct from the asylum system for migrants. Refugees come from all over the world, many fleeing conflict. They undergo extensive vetting while still overseas to be cleared for entry to the United States, unlike migrants who arrive at a U.S. border and then request asylum.

New York Region to Accelerate Reopening (NYT) New York and its neighbors New Jersey and Connecticut announced on Monday that they were lifting almost all their pandemic restrictions, paving the way for a return to fuller offices and restaurants, a more vibrant nightlife and a richer array of cultural and religious gatherings for the first time in a year. The relaxation of rules starting May 19 is a testament to the fact that coronavirus cases are down and vaccination rates are rising. New York will also bring back 24-hour service to the subway on May 17, after a year of overnight closures, a move critical for night-shift workers.

Colombia protests (Foreign Policy) Mass protests in Colombia sparked by President Ivan Duque’s new tax proposals continued on Monday—a day after Duque withdrew the unpopular measures—and are expected to resume today. Finance Minister Alberto Carrasquilla tendered his resignation on Monday, saying in a statement that his presence in government would “complicate the quick and effective construction of the necessary consensus.” Although Carrasquilla’s connection with the tax reforms precipitated his fall, he had become a figure of ridicule after he failed to provide an accurate answer for the current price of a dozen eggs when questioned by local media last month.

A farmer moved the border between France and Belgium so his tractor could have more room (AP) The border between Belgium and France has been largely stable for 200 years. That is, until a Belgian farmer annoyed with the placement of one of the stones marking the storied territorial divide inadvertently shifted the border 7.5 feet so his tractor could move more easily. The Belgian village of Erquelinnes, which lies along the 390-mile border with France, had as a result grown by seven feet. The French town of Bousignies-sur-Roc in turn shed more than a few inches. The stone in question dates to 1819, one year before the signing of the Treaty of Kortrijk, which set the modern-day boundaries of the once-warring states, according to the BBC. Much has improved in relations between Belgium and France in the two centuries since Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. “We should be able to avoid a new border war,” Aurélie Welonek, the mayor of Bousignies-sur-Roc, told a French newspaper. Belgian authorities told the BBC that they will ask the farmer to move the border back. If he does not comply, they may need to seek help from the Franco-Belgian border commission, which has not been summoned since 1930.

Opposition chief calls for lockdown as India’s coronavirus cases cross 20 million (Reuters) Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi called for a nationwide lockdown as the country’s tally of coronavirus infections surged past 20 million on Tuesday, becoming the second nation after the United States to pass the grim milestone. India’s deadly second wave of infections, the world’s biggest surge in coronavirus infections, has seen it take just over four months to add 10 million cases, versus more than 10 months for its first 10 million. Currently, the country has 3.45 million active cases.

Day 1 of the End of the U.S. War in Afghanistan (NYT) KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan—A gray American transport plane taxied down the runway, carrying munitions, a giant flat screen television from a C.I.A. base, pallets of equipment and departing troops. It was one of several aircraft that night removing what remained of the American war from this sprawling military base in the country’s south. The United States and its NATO allies spent decades building Kandahar Airfield into a wartime city, filled with tents, operations centers, barracks, basketball courts, ammunition storage sites, aircraft hangars and at least one post office. The scenes over the weekend were almost as if a multitrillion-dollar war machine had morphed into a garage sale. At the airfield’s peak in 2010 and 2011, its famous and much derided boardwalk housed snack shops, chain restaurants, a hockey rink and trinket stores. Tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO troops were based here, and many more passed through as it became the main installation for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan’s south. Now, half-demolished outdoor gyms and empty hangars were filled with nearly 20 years’ worth of matériel.

As Lebanese cry for justice, politics paralyzes the system (AP) Even after she was taken off an investigation into alleged financial crimes by a money transfer company, the defiant Lebanese prosecutor charged ahead. She showed up at the company’s offices outside of Beirut with a group of supporters and a metal worker, who broke open the locked gate. Ghada Aoun obtained data from Mecattaf Holding Company that she contends will reveal the identities of people who sneaked billions of dollars out of Lebanon amid the financial meltdown that has hit the country. The move was part of a public feud between Aoun and Lebanon’s state prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat, who had dismissed her from the case, saying she’d overstepped with two earlier raids. Their feud has turned into scuffles between their supporters in the street. That is the problem in Lebanon: The judiciary is so deeply politicized it paralyzes the wheels of justice, mirroring how factional rivalries have paralyzed politics. Political interference in the judiciary has for years thwarted investigations into corruption, violence and assassinations. But mistrust of the judiciary is thrown into even starker relief now, when Lebanese are crying out for politicians to be held accountable for the disastrous crises in their country—not only the financial collapse but also last August’s massive explosion in Beirut’s port that killed scores and wrecked much of the capital. The explosion has been blamed on incompetence and neglect. “Those who hold on to power have set up a judiciary that is loyal to them in order to fight their opponents and protect their interests,” retired state prosecutor Hatem Madi told The Associated Press.

Netanyahu misses deadline, political future in question (AP) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has missed a midnight deadline for putting together a new coalition government. His failure to reach an agreement late Tuesday raises the possibility that Netanyahu’s Likud party could be pushed into the opposition for the first time in 12 years. The turmoil does not mean that Netanyahu will immediately be forced out as prime minister. But he suddenly faces a serious threat to his lengthy rule. His opponents already have been holding informal talks in recent weeks to lay the groundwork for a power-sharing deal.

More than a dozen people killed by Islamist militants in northeast Nigeria (Reuters) More than a dozen people, including seven soldiers, were killed by Islamist militants in an attack in northeast Nigeria, four sources told Reuters. The militants arrived in the Ajiri community in the Mafa local government area of Borno state on motorcycles early on Sunday, killing an army commanding officer and six soldiers, the sources said. The assailants also killed six civilians, burned down nine housing blocks and carted away valuables, the sources told Reuters.

More veggies (WSJ) According to federal survey data, 76.6 percent of 51- to 70 year old women and 85.6 percent of 51- to 70-year-old men eat less than the recommended amount of vegetables. The thing is that’s actually pretty good compared to teenagers, who really need to eat some greens: fully 98.8 percent of 14- to 18-year-old girls and 98.5 percent of 14- to 18-year-old boys ate less than the recommended amount of vegetables, which is particularly bad developmentally speaking.

A good Samaritan (CNN) The 23-month-old girl who fell out of a car and into a bay Sunday after a multi-vehicle crash on a bridge in Ocean City, Maryland, is expected to make a full recovery thanks to a “humble hero” who jumped into the water to save the child, authorities said Monday. Eight people were taken to hospitals Sunday after the crash on the Route 90 bridge left a car dangling off the guardrail, authorities said. All eight were discharged from hospitals and are doing well, Ryan Whittington, firefighter and medic at Ocean City Fire Department, told CNN. Whittington said the man who saved the toddler is choosing to remain unnamed publicly. The fire department is calling him the “humble hero” for his rescue. The man was driving on the bridge, and his car was also involved in the crash, Whittington said. The drivers were pointing down to the Assawoman Bay, where he saw the girl lying in the water, face down. “He just jumped into action,” said Whittington, adding that the water in that area is about 5 feet deep, and the jump was more than 25 feet. “He saved a 23-month-old child. There’s no doubt in our mind that if he had not did what he did when he did it that we would be having a different headline to this story,” Whittington said.

[madamspeaker]

It’s not a “gate” - The hair/salon thing

I’ve addressed the salon thing in a couple of asks, but I wanted to take a moment to just go through the whole thing separate of those because what this saga has highlighted is a complete failure of journalists to do their work, and the undercurrent of misogyny that perpetuates both journalistic discourse, and how women must present themselves, especially if a public figure.

(This is long, so to spare your dashboards it’s under a cut)

Let’s start with the facts. Nancy’s usual stylist wasn’t available for Monday, so she/he recommended someone else. Nancy’s office contacted him last weekend (Nancy only returned to SF some time on Friday), and asked if it was possible to do her hair. The thing to note at this moment is that the rules governing salons in California started to change from last Friday. The governor had announced limited indoor openings, but to confuse matters some localities were still imposing tighter restrictions. Nancy’s office checked with the stylist, who told them that the rules permitted one person in at a time. He then asked the salon owner who he rented a chair from if he could go into the premises and do the appointment on Monday. The owner agreed to his request on the Saturday. Fast forward to Monday afternoon - Nancy gets her hair done before doing a television interview on MSNBC, and then on Tuesday the owner cries “outrage!!!” to Fox News, bringing along with her a seconds long bit of footage that shows Nancy with her mask around her neck. Naturally the whole thing explodes on Twitter and then across other media (several versions of the story made the top ten shared links on Facebook).

What followed was a failure of journalism to ask follow up questions about the clearly odd parts of the salon owner’s account as relayed by Fox News (a red flag in of itself). In her interview with Fox she admitted she had known about the appointment in advance, but no one thought to ask why she let the appointment go ahead if it so offended and outraged her - she did own the place afterall, it’s not like Nancy had keys or barged in. Likewise, no one thought to ask where the rest of the salon footage was. Why only release seconds worth which rather conveniently showed Nancy with her mask down, and partially hidden under her chin? Could it be that she had worn the mask the rest of the time. No one in the media thought to ask this. It seemed fairly clear to most sensible people on Tuesday night that something with off with the salon owner’s tale of outrage, but the media pretty much took the Fox News version of events at verbatim. Only USA Today raised the points I just did, but alas, they buried them in their write up.

Wednesday saw Nancy fight back, acknowledging that she took responsibilty for trusting the salon (when perhaps she should have had someone else verify what they had been told), but ask yourselves this, would you have verified it elsewhere? She had been to this salon before with a stylist, they were local, she trusted them, and in a situation in which the law was changing, it makes perfect and reasonable sense to ask the professionals in that industry what their status is. On this point there have been plenty of indignant people and bots on Twitter up in arms that Nancy didn��t apparently know the regulations in SF, but a) she didn’t make those regulations (as some seem to think), b) she spends just as much if not more time in D.C., and c) she has about 100 other things on her plate in any given hour, that salon regulations in SF are probably somewhere near 120 on her list after deal with Covid-19, Trump, win the election, save the USPS, try to get a stimulus bill, deal with the federal budget which will need a CR to prevent a shutdown (minutes after I hit publish on this it was announced she had reached a deal with Mnuchin to avoid a shutdown), restore in-person inteligence briefings, file an appeal in the McGahn case (again), Bill sodding Barr,, Russian bounties on US soldiers and so on. She has an insanely stressful job at the moment, her staff too, and it seems more than reasonable for staff/her to ask a professional in the industry about the regulations on salons, when such regulations were pretty confusing to most people last weekend anyway. Nancy’s only apparent “crime” in this instance was to trust the word of the industry pro.

Then of course we have the “she’s not wearing a mask” portion of this debacle. Not one journalist has asked where the rest of the footage is. We see Nancy walk from the bowl to another room, wet hair, phone in hand, and the mask around her neck (slightly hidden by her chin), but we never got the footage of her walking to the bowl, or any other footage from what was definitely more than a 4 second long appointment. Could it possibly be that she had indeed been wearing a mask the rest of the time - that she wasn’t just wearing it around her neck as some sort of foulard meets choker fashion statement. People have asked, “Why did she pull it down?”, and to that I will say, probably any one of three or four reasons. She uses a clip at the back of her neck to secure her masks rather than the ear loops. Maybe it was in the way and the stylist asked her to pull it down. Maybe she had trouble breathing with her face covered and head back. Maybe she didn’t want to get it wet. The point here is that it was around her neck, suggesting that she had been compliant until that fateful video captured moment. The media again though have run with the Fox News narrative that she had no mask. For one, it’s actually visible in the footage, and two, they are blatantly disregarding what they themselves know to be true - that Nancy has been wearing a mask for the last five months. We have the footage and photographs to prove it, not to mention the press also know that she takes down her mask to talk at her pressers etc. The press are playing stupid on this point to satisfy some both sides need in an election that so far has Joe Biden with a good lead. Their wilful obtusity is purely to inject some drama into things on the Dem side for clicks because nothing at present is sticking to Biden. All this leads to me to the misogyny.

I caught part of a radio interview yesterday in which two male hosts had to have it explained to them as to why a woman in the public eye might need a hair stylist more than once a week. One of the men had been perplexed as to why if Nancy needed her hair done she hadn’t just got it taken care of in D.C. were salons are open. It never entered his brain that no amount of hair spray is going to keep a hairstyle in place for at least 3 days (when Nancy was last in D.C.), or that she might need to lie down to sleep, or that hair does actually need washed. Likewise, it never occured to either of them that Nancy turning up to an television interview with anything other than styled hair would be a news story in itself, because here’s the rub, women are damned for makeup and hairstyling and thought vain and shallow, and they’re damned if they don’t put makeup on and get their hair done, especially for television (we all remember the “omg” reactions when Hillary turned up to an event days after the election in 2016 with a bare face). The last couple of days have been full of this crap, with men (looking at you Don Lemon and the SF Chronicle editorial board) especially saying Nancy should apologise for the salon episode. Why should she? She did what any reasonable person would do and asked about the rules. Her error was to take the salon at their word, but by today’s logic the salon’s lie is Nancy’s fault. I have seen more than one man on Twitter admit the facts of the case and still say “she should take the hit”. Would they say this of a man who had been lied to, framed, and the footage sold to a hostile media company? I think not.

And then of course there is the salon owner herself. The stylist released a statement last night backing Nancy’s side of events up. He also revealed that the owner, so “outraged” by Nancy’s appointment, had in fact been opening up illegally since April, had been forgoing masks, and been forcing stylists to work. What also emerged is that the owner had let her licence lapse on the premises back in May (so Nancy had not ended her business as she claimed), and was in the middle of relocating to Fresno -- something the press have gilbly ignored as they report how she has been hounded out of town because of Nancy, and forced to move. Let me say this, not even the IRA at the peak of The Troubles could get people to move that quick, and they had guns. And then there’s the gofundme - which popped up less than 24hrs after she handed the tape to Fox. Naturally the blurb is a sorry tale of woe, of a supposedly single mother forced to move because of the evil Speaker of the House. No mention that she owns three salons, that she’d let the licence lapse on one anyway, is opening one in Fresno, loves her guns (and those ain’t cheap) and took a PPP loan of $12,000 wihilst operating illegally. By the way, at the time of writing this, the gofundme has raised over $80k for her -- which shows you how Trumpers will buy into any bullshit, and how Nancy is a fundraising powerhouse regardless of your party affliation lol.

I appreciate this has been a rather long read, and if you made it this far, thanks! Nancy didn’t do anything wrong other than take the word of a salon in good faith. Should she have known the regulations herself? Maybe, but she has the kind of crazy and stressful life most of us can’t even begin to imagine, and unlike the Presidency, the Office of Speaker doesn’t come with personal maid services thrown in, or a whole West Wing of staff. End of the day, once out of that office, Nancy has to do all that normal life stuff that the rest of us do - shop, go to the post office, buy clothes etc., and now in the Covid era get ready for tv interviews herself rather than a studio stylist do it. Her mistake was to trust someone who has it turns out saw a chance to have a moment of fame, stick one to the woman she ignorantly blamed for the lockdown, and make some money from gullible Trumpers. I don’t know how this story will play out in the coming days. Ice cream lasted a week, spurred on by the far-left and then the far-right. This may have more staying power as Trump desperately seeks some kind of mud to stick to Dems, and with nothing sticking to Biden at present, his 2016 playbook (and the even older GOP one) of blame a woman (in this case Nancy) has been deployed. The problem of course is that Trump isn’t running against Nancy -- but as the press have so depressingly showed, that fact hasn’t stopped them from elevating one trip to a salon above 180k+ dead, Melania using a prvate email server (!!!, I mean come the fuck onnnnnnn, this after 2016!!!?!?!?), or Trump telling people to committ a felony and vote twice.

[quatorz]

Here’s something I wrote just prior to the election...

I’m sharing it here in case anyone thinks its useful.  I think-especially with the events of today-its going to become so apparent that we need to ‘demystify’ the Trumpster fire and expose him for the lying sack of shit that he was.

I said to a friend of mine MANY years ago that the most dangerous thing that was happening was that the truth was becoming partisan.  Man is that true now. 

But I wrote this, sent it to a few relatives (including my own Dad who is a supporter of the Orange One), and posted it to Facebook. 

The goal of the piece was always: ‘hey, you don’t have to listen to me.  Here are other sources (most of them Republican) who point out this mans complete inability to fill the Oval Office.  (And I live in Pennsylvania, and I wrote this just before our former Governor-former Republican Governor-Tom Ridge endorsed Biden.  Else I definitely would have included this). 

And some of it may seem slightly personal or familiar?  I was writing this primarily to speak to members of my family and friends. 

If any of this is useful, feel free to use it. 

Why I’m Not Voting for Trump

A few weeks ago a bomb dropped.  Not a literal bomb-as in ordinance, but a news bomb.  Although in our endlessly insane (or maybe insanely endless?) news cycle that’s been the last four years, it was easy to get overshadowed because another bomb probably dropped the next day or ever a few hours after that one.

But this one was different.  This was the revelation that Trump had 400 million dollars in outstanding loans.  On one of those loans-for 100 million dollars-they’d paid only the interest-none of the principal-and the loan is due in 2022.  The obvious question was asked: who does he owe that money too?

It’s a good question.  There was a great quote making the rounds from Eric Trump in 2014: ‘Who needs American banks?  Russia has plenty of money!’  During his town hall Savannah Guthrie asked Trump directly if that 400 million dollars was owed to foreign banks.  “Probably,” he said.

So: what makes that revelation a ‘bomb’? 

When I heard this, I immediately thought back to an instance that’s always stuck with me: last October when we inexplicably pulled our troops out of Syria.  Do you remember that?  Trump got off the phone with President Erdogan and announced that we were pulling out of Syria.  The backlash was immediate and bi-partisan.  Resident sycophant Lindsay Graham was especially critical, tweeting out:

“The most probable outcome of this impulsive decision is to ensure Iran’s domination of Syria...The U.S. now has no leverage and Syria will eventually become a nightmare for Israel.

“I feel very bad for the Americans and allies who have sacrificed to destroy the ISIS Caliphate because this decision virtually reassures the reemergence of ISIS.  So sad.  So dangerous.  President Trump may be tired of fighting radical Islam.  They are NOT tired of fighting us.”

This incident always stuck with me.  Especially the timing: getting off the phone with Erdogan and then hours later pulling out of Syria.  Astute researchers quickly found an audio clip of Trump on Steve Bannon’s radio show from back in 2011 saying ‘well, I have a conflict of interest when it comes to Turkey.  I have two buildings in Istanbul’...

So at first I thought this was simply another example of something I’d long thought Trump guilty of: being the president of Trump Enterprises first, and America second.  We’d seen that before with one of the first acts of his administration: the Travel Ban*, and then with his handling of the FBI building**. 

But when news of the outstanding loans came to light, I thought again about Syria, and the odd, out-of-the-blue nature of the President’s decision. 

The day the news of the loans broke, they had a former security official on MSNBC, and he brought up an interesting point: if you had large outstanding financial obligations like that to a foreign bank, you might be denied a security clearance based on that fact because you could be threatened or cajoled into acting against our country’s interests. 

Is that what happened here?  Did Erdogan ask Trump to pull his forces out of Syria (or did he demand it)?  Or was it Putin, indirectly through Erdogan who maybe told Trump “a mutual friend would be very appreciative if you would do this for him”. 

Who gave the order to pull out of Syria…?  An order that-according to Lindsey Graham-went against America’s interest and all but assured the resurrection of ISIS?

You’re probably thinking: whoa, Dave!   Easy there!  I mean, that sounds pretty crazy, right?  The idea that the President could be financially compromised to the extent that he does the bidding of our adversaries? 

Actually, I’m not the first to submit this crazy theory.  After the 2018 meeting in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin, a Republican state Congressman from Texas (yes, you read that right: a Republican from Texas) posted an op-ed with the title: Trump Is Being Manipulated by Putin. What Should We Do?

This Texas Republican’s background?  He’s former CIA.  In the op-ed he writes: “over the course of my career as an undercover officer in the C.I.A., I saw Russian intelligence manipulate many people. I never thought I would see the day when an American president would be one of them.”

He goes on to say: “The president’s failure to defend the United States intelligence community’s unanimous conclusions of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and condemn Russian covert counterinfluence campaigns and his standing idle on the world stage while a Russian dictator spouted lies confused many but should concern all Americans. 

“By playing into Vladimir Putin’s hands, the leader of the free world actively participated in a Russian disinformation campaign that legitimized Russian denial and weakened the credibility of the United States to both our friends and foes abroad.”

Wow.

I strongly believe that this President is dangerous.  He’s dangerous in the way he coddles up to autocrats.  He’s dangerous because he has financial entanglements that make him put his own interests before the nation’s.  And he’s dangerous because he politicized a virus that killed 200,000+ people when we now know he’s on record in February telling Bob Woodward (on tape no less) that this was WAY worse the flu, and was deadly. 

But you don’t take my word for it.  Listen to some fellow Republicans.  Here’s a statement by 70 Republicans who served as national security officials and say that this President is dangerously unfit to serve another term.  https://www.defendingdemocracytogether.org/national-security/

There’s more.  In an open letter to America, 780 retired Generals, Admirals, Senior Noncommissioned Officers, Ambassadors and Senior Civilian National Security Officials announced their support of Joe Biden for President for similar reasons: https://www.nationalsecurityleaders4biden.com/

Let me say, also, that I don’t think there’s anything ideologically wrong with being a Republican.  But I would submit to you that this current Republican administration and Republican Congress does not serve you, or anyone you know.

Basically, if you’re not going to watch Penn State play Ohio State tonight from Mar-A-Lago, their interests are not your interests. 

Trump isn’t for the ‘little guy’.  He’s accomplished one thing legislatively in his four years in office, and that was a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.  Now, those billionaires are using their considerable resources (like Rupert Murdoch and Fox News) to try and get you to vote for him again so that they can keep the gravy train rolling.  It’s as simple as that.  It’s all about money.

Oh, and I forgot one other thing this President has done for the wealthy and corporations: he’s been hell bent on deregulating industry.  Which is great for big business, but not so great for us-the consumers.  In 2019 regulations on the pork industry were rolled back (read more about that here: https://qz.com/1716113/trump-gives-pork-industry-a-path-to-regulate-itself/).

What could go wrong there?  There were two health inspectors who came forward (if I remember right, they may have been the ones to bring the issue to light) and they basically said that they wouldn’t be eating the food from the companies where they had worked. 

Right now there are massive efforts to have legitimate votes cast be discounted.  In Minnesota, Republicans there are fighting a ruling that ballots can be received up to seven days after the election-as long as they are postmarked by election day.

This deadline was put into place months ago because of the pandemic, and was accepted on a bi-partisan basis.  Now Republicans are challenging that.  So you could have voters that put their vote in the mail last Tuesday-while the deadline was valid-only to have their vote challenged if the post office delivers it on Wednesday. 

Surely it can’t be partisan to feel that everyone’s vote should count?  But this is the new extreme right Republican party that will do anything to win-even disenfranchise legal votes.  Discounting valid votes is how we go from being America to being a Banana Republic.  At some point these Republicans need to understand that they are Americans first and Republicans second, or we are screwed as a nation. 

Trump is a man who shows no respect for the office of the President, caters to autocrats while his lawyers argue in court that he shouldn’t be able to be investigated while he’s in office.  If you’re an American, that should ALARM THE CRAP out of you.  Democracies can fall.  It’s happening everywhere around the globe.  If you think it ‘couldn’t happen here’ simply because it never has, that’s some dangerous thinking.  Remember, technically Putin is ‘elected’ into office.  And this Congress has failed epically in its duty to be a check on the executive branch.  That’s their job, by the way-regardless of who is in office.  

Don’t get me started on Attorney General William Barr.  I wonder if-during his confirmation hearings-when he listed ‘Banana Republics’ on his resume they thought he’d worked for the now defunct clothing chain, not that he was adept at creating them. 

You may be asking yourself: why is he putting all this out there now?  Because I love all of you-and certainly respect all of you.  And I see you blindly following a leader who doesn’t represent you or your values.  And I see you acting in a way and saying things and posting things that are inconsistent with the people I know you to be.

I’m working on the assumption that you are being fed false information.  That deep down you are indeed the people that I think you are, but you are being misled.

And remember: there are two ways to lie.  You can outright tell someone something that is false.  But you can also lie by omission.  Fox News is certainly guilty of the former, but maybe even more so of the latter.  (Fox News probably won’t tell you that 780 former Generals and National Security officials say that the President shouldn’t serve another term.   They didn’t lie…they just didn’t mention it.  And I think that’s something worth mentioning.)

Think of the dynamic at work here: Trump does or says something.  The dozens of news organizations that you’ve followed and respected your entire lives tells you it’s false.  One-ONE-news organization backs up his claim (the organization that is owned by a man who has benefited financially from President’s policies).  Meanwhile Trump calls the others ‘fake news’.  Do you see anything wrong there?

There is a great quote from Orwell’s 1984 that has become hauntingly prescient over the last four years: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” 

This Tuesday will be a deciding moment in this nation.  If you want a vote that actually means something in 2024, don’t vote for Trump on Tuesday.

 ****************

*What about the Travel Ban?  Glad you asked.  If you remember, the travel ban was assigned to keep us safe by preventing people from certain countries from coming to America (it is worth noting that the travel ban was first struck down by a federal judge appointed by George Bush).  One of the oddities about the travel ban was that there were three countries that were exempt.  These three countries were the only countries that had produced terrorists that had killed Americans.  None of the countries actually on the travel ban had.   Weird, huh?  Do you know what else these countries had in common?  They all had Trump branded properties. 

 **  The F.B.I. building.  So the F.B.I. building is in not great shape.  It’s old and falling apart.  In fact they had sections of the outside cordoned off so that a piece of the outer façade doesn’t fall off and kill someone.  The U.S. government had worked out a deal with a contractor that the contractor would build the F.B.I. a brand new facility-for free-and then in exchange the contractor would be given the old F.B.I. location to do whatever they want with it.  Presumably, knock down and make it into a new building/hotel/shops (whatever).  Pretty good deal, right?

Except…a year or so ago a lady had a meeting at the White House and then went before Congress and said that the F.B.I. did not, in fact, want a free brand new facility anymore, but instead wanted the renovate and repair the old one instead.  Huh…

Do you know what building is just a couple blocks down from the F.B.I. building’s location?  Trump’s D.C. hotel. 

Now I know what you’re thinking.  You’re saying: ‘but Dave, look at all the NFL owners: they didn’t want new stadiums.  They decided to pour money into their old dilapidated stadiums that were steeped in tradition and history!’  Except you’re not saying that because that never happened.  Everyone wants a new facility over a crumbling money pit, and I’m sure the F.B.I was no exception.

(It’s also interesting to note that-for some reason-there was two billion dollars in one of the recent versions of a Coronavirus relief bill-that wasn’t passed-allocated for the repair of the F.B.I. building.  Why?  Who put that in there? It wasn’t Senate Republicans.  It was funny watching Mitch McConnell answering questions about that and having to admit that he had no idea that it was even in there).

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 4, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 5, 2024

The Democrats on the House Oversight Committee today released a 156-page report showing that when he was in the presidency, Trump received at least $7.8 million from 20 different governments, including those of China, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Malaysia, through businesses he owned. 

The Democrats brought receipts. 

According to the report—and the documents from Trump’s former accounting firm Mazars that are attached to it—the People’s Republic of China and companies substantially controlled by the PRC government paid at least $5,572,548 to Trump-owned properties while Trump was in office; Saudi Arabia paid at least $615,422; Qatar paid at least $465,744; Kuwait paid at least $300,000; India paid at least $282,764; Malaysia paid at least $248,962; Afghanistan paid at least $154,750; the Philippines paid at least $74,810; the United Arab Emirates paid at least $65,225. The list went on and on. 

The committee Democrats explained that these payments were likely only a fraction of the actual money exchanged, since they cover only four of more than 500 entities Trump owned at the time. When the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January 2023, Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) stopped the investigation before Mazars had produced the documents the committee had asked for when Democrats were in charge of it. Those records included documents relating to Russia, South Korea, South Africa, and Brazil. 

Trump fought hard against the production of these documents, dragging out the court fight until September 2022. The committee worked on them for just four months before voters put Republicans in charge of the House and the investigation stopped. 

These are the first hard numbers that show how foreign governments funneled money to the president while policies involving their countries were in front of him. The report notes, for example, that Trump refused to impose sanctions on Chinese banks that were helping the North Korean government; one of those banks was paying him close to $2 million in rent annually for commercial office space in Trump Tower. 

The first article of the U.S. Constitution reads: “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument [that is, salary, fee, or profit], Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” 

The report also contrasted powerfully with the attempt of Republicans on the Oversight Committee, led by Comer, to argue that Democratic Joe Biden has corruptly profited from the presidency. 

In the Washington Post on December 26, 2023, Philip Bump noted that just after voters elected a Republican majority, Comer told the Washington Post that as soon as he was in charge of the Oversight Committee, he would use his power to “determine if this president and this White House are compromised because of the millions of dollars that his family has received from our adversaries in China, Russia and Ukraine.”

For the past year, while he and the committee have made a number of highly misleading statements to make it sound as if there are Biden family businesses involving the president (there are not) and the president was involved in them (he was not), their claims were never backed by any evidence. Bump noted in a piece on December 14, 2023, for example, that Comer told Fox News Channel personality Maria Bartiromo that “the Bidens” have “taken in” more than $24 million. In fact, Bump explained, Biden’s son Hunter and his business partners did receive such payments, but most of the money went to the business partners. About $7.5 million of it went to Hunter Biden. There is no evidence that any of it went to Joe Biden. 

All of the committee’s claims have similar reality checks. Jonathan Yerushalmy of The Guardian wrote that after nearly 40,000 pages of bank records and dozens of hours of testimony, “no evidence has emerged that Biden acted corruptly or accepted bribes in his current or previous role.”

Still, the constant hyping of their claims on right-wing media led then–House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to authorize an impeachment inquiry in mid-September, and in mid-December, Republicans in the House formalized the inquiry. 

There is more behind the attack on Biden than simply trying to even the score between him and Trump—who remains angry at his impeachments and has demanded Republicans retaliate—or to smear Biden through an “investigation,” which has been a standard technique of the Republicans since the mid-1990s.

Claiming that Biden is as corrupt as Trump undermines faith in our democracy. After all, if everyone is a crook, why does it matter which one is in office? And what makes American democracy any different from the authoritarian systems of Russia or Hungary or Venezuela, where leaders grab what they can for themselves and their followers?

Democracies are different from authoritarian governments because they have laws to prevent the corruption in which it appears Trump engaged. The fact that Republicans refuse to hold their own party members accountable to those laws while smearing their opponents says far more about them than it does about the nature of democracy.

It does, though, highlight that our democracy is in danger.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[lastsonlost]

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS SHIT FOREVER!

In 2011, the US Department of Education issued a mandate to post-secondary educational institutions, regarding their handling of allegations of sexual misconduct among students. The department’s guidelines required these institutions to create their own pseudo-justice system wherein allegations would be investigated, and hearings held. The standards laid out by the department were a naked attack on students’ right to due process, dictating broad definitions for types of misconduct that stretched far beyond the legal definitions the criminal justice system uses, and laying out a systematic denial of the due process rights of accused students. In the legal chaos created by the concept of an accuser’s automatic victim status and “right to be believed,” many students, mostly young men, have seen their academic careers interrupted or even ended by mere allegations from fellow students.

Institutions all over the United States had responded to the 2011 “dear colleague” letter with changes to policy and procedures that resulted in disciplinary actions over which hundreds of students sued their universities. TitleIXforall.com is currently tracking 627 of these lawsuits. The site contains a database of these lawsuits, along with a list of helpful organizations or individuals for students experiencing discrimination, and a list of distinguished due process attorneys.

There have been rulings in federal court indicating that the dear colleague standards and the policies they inspired created violations of students’ constitutionally protected civil rights. In one ruling that dramatically contradicted the dear colleague guidelines, the 6th circuit held that in conducting Title IX investigations, colleges and universities are required to provide parties an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder in cases hinging on the credibility of such witnesses. In another, the court found that an accused student was deprived of due process rights when university administrators suspended him without first holding an official hearing. If anything, these rulings have made it clear that the dear colleague standards cannot remain in place as an unaltered policy, because they contain unconstitutional requirements.

Trump administration Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, upon accepting her appointment to the office, vowed reform. In late 2018, extending into January 2019, her office accepted commentary from citizens regarding the topic. Last year she released a set of proposed changes intended to restore due process and protect students’ freedom of speech, sending feminists into a panic as her new, updated guidelines were set to roll back or dramatically alter several points of the 2011 dear colleague guidance. Completely ignoring the fact that the 2011 rules were a huge departure from the real court system’s response to criminal allegations, the National Organization for Women accused DeVos of wanting to “turn the government’s response to assault, harassment and rape upside down,” and openly lamented the impending loss of “victims’ rights.”

Unphased by feminist melodrama, on Wednesday, May 6, Secretary DeVos’s office formally announced the new rules.

Robby Suave, writing for Reason.com, stated, “The new rules are similar to what the Department of Education proposed in November 2018. Most notably, the government has abolished the single-investigator model, which previously permitted a sole university official to investigate an accusation of misconduct, decide which evidence to consider, and produce a report recommending an outcome. Under the new rules, the final decision maker must be a different person than the investigator, and a finding of responsibility can only be rendered after a hearing in which a representative for the accused is able to pose questions to the accuser—i.e., cross-examination. Importantly, the new rules narrow the scope of actionable sexual harassment to exclude conduct that ought to be protected under the First Amendment. Obama-era guidance had defined sexual harassment as "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature." The new rules keep this definition but add that the conduct must be offensive to a reasonable person, severe, and pervasive. In practice, this should mean that schools will no longer initiate Title IX investigations that impugn free speech.

The new rules will also end the pernicious practice of universities initiating Title IX investigations in cases where the alleged victims are not interested in this course of action.”

On May 7, the National Organization for Women published a press release calling the new guidelines an all-out attack on the safety of women and girls. Their article begins with the theatrical line “We don’t see you.  We don’t hear you. We don’t believe you.” That’s the message Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is sending with the sweeping new changes to Title IX…” and only gets worse from there, lamenting that the Devos guidelines are set in law rather than just tied by policy to schools’ funding, labeling long-standing due process standards “new rights,” and calling the changes “draconian.” Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden disavowed the new guidelines, claiming in a statement quoted by Politico that the new rules “shame and silence survivors,” and give colleges “a green light to ignore sexual violence and strip survivors of their rights.” He has vowed to “put a quick end” to these changes if elected. The article goes on to quote Biden, who has recently vehemently denied a sexual assault allegation against himself by former aide Tara Reade, as stating that “Survivors deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and when they step forward they should be heard, not silenced.”

While Biden thinks it is an attack on survivors for universities to carefully scrutinize allegations against their students, regarding his own case, he stated that accusers’ stories “should be subject to appropriate inquiry and scrutiny," and that when reporting on this particular allegation, “Responsible news organizations should examine and evaluate the full and growing record of inconsistencies in her story," a benefit he would not get from campus investigators if he were a student facing the same allegation from a fellow student under Obama-era guidelines.

The feminist response to this has been quite interesting. There doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the same degree of outrage leveled at presidential candidate Biden over this allegation as there was leveled at Donald Trump over his flippant remark about the variability of women’s sensibilities regarding men’s sexual pursuit depending on the subject’s wealth and popularity. In fact, some feminists have even followed up statements that they believe Biden’s accuser, which under today’s standards would mean they view Biden as a confirmed rapist - with declarations that they support his candidacy anyway. But they still oppose DeVos’s Title IX reforms because screw men and their due process rights if they can’t wheel and deal federal funding for feminist initiatives in return for feminists’ political support.

Biden’s history of garnering feminist support by opposing the due process rights of other men accused of sexual misconduct is longstanding and consistent. During his current campaign, he has bragged about his part as a co-author of the Violence Against Women act of 1994, Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In 1993, he cited the work of radfem professor Mary P. Koss in support of the passage of his bill. VAWA included multiple attacks on due process and the gender neutrality of federal intimate partner and sexual violence law.

The law used wording that relies on the label “victim” for accusers throughout its text, presuming accusers’ stories to be factual and the accused to be perpetrators, thereby removing the presumption of innocence. This is normal for statutes describing criminal definitions, but VAWA does so in its descriptions of policy and procedures for criminal investigations and hearings, and federally funded social services for accusers whose alleged perpetrators haven’t been convicted.

Under VAWA, federal funding was allocated for indoctrinating every aspect of the justice system with feminist dogma, prejudicing them against the accused. Further, federal funding was allocated to incentivize arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing, without regard to the merits or dubiousness of individual allegations. The law funded advocates to accompany accusers to court, creating a government-supported adversary against the accused that is unique to these types of criminal allegations. This advocate’s job is to support the accuser's interests against the due process rights of the accused, and to provide emotional support throughout the judicial process. The accused is not given any equivalent support. Under the law Biden brags about penning, the law enforcement and judicial systems are essentially ordered to approach criminal sexual misconduct allegations with a presumption of guilt and then cripple the defense of the accused, yet when accused of such misconduct himself, Biden expects the full benefit of the doubt from you peons whose due process rights he eviscerated with that law.

In all of his statements on Reade’s allegations against him, and his opinion of DeVos’s Title IX reforms, 

BIDEN HAS YET TO EXPLAIN WHY HE THINKS HE IS DESERVING OF A BETTER LEVEL OF CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS THAN YOU ARE.                                                   

In fact, to date, while it’s been posed rhetorically by some in the right-leaning media, he hasn’t even directly faced that question from anybody.

Will anyone in the establishment media have the courage to ask him? Does the presidential candidate have the courage to be interviewed by someone who would?

SOURCES

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf

https://reason.com/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-title-ix-due-process-college-sexual-misconduct/ https://now.org/media-center/press-release/betsy-devos-new-rule-on-campus-sexual-assault-continues-the-all-out-attack-on-the-safety-and-rights-of-women-and-girls/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/biden-vows-a-quick-end-to-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-241715

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-allegation/index.html

https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/sixth-circuit-provides-expansive-due-process-rights-title-ix-cases

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/08/ruling-umass-amherst-title-ix-lawsuit-may-lead-supreme-court-case-experts-say

https://now.org/media-center/press-release/see-no-evil-betsy-devos-endangers-survivors-of-campus-sexual-misconduct/

http://www.saveservices.org/2012/08/how-rape-laws-remove-the-presumption-of-innocence/

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=w2NPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XgMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5854%2C2479318

[popolitiko]

FACEBOOK F-UP:

BIDEN ADS BANNED, TRUMPS’ USHERED THROUGH

Just days from the election, the tech giant wrongly blocked thousands of Biden ads due to “technical flaws” — and that’s only the beginning.

Under mounting pressure to quell the flood of partisan misinformation coursing through its platform, Facebook announced a new policy in September: It would stop accepting all new political ads during the week preceding the presidential election.

“This election is not going to be business as usual,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement at the time. “We all have a responsibility to protect our democracy.”

In theory, as Zuckerberg touted, the policy would prevent political advertisers from spreading new messages to targeted audiences before fact-checkers and journalists had time to scrutinize them — reducing the risk of false and misleading claims going viral in the run-up to the vote.

In practice, it has been a disaster.

The ban went into effect at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday. Chaos ensued almost immediately: Thousands of previously approved ads from Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s campaign and multiple progressive groups were wrongly blocked due to a “technical flaw,” potentially costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. President Donald Trump’s campaign managed to launch new ads post-ban. And in violation of its own rules, Facebook approved ads from the president’s campaign prematurely declaring victory, as well as hundreds of ads bearing the misleading text “ELECTION DAY IS TODAY” or “Vote Today.”

Days later, Facebook is still putting out fires amid searing accusations of partisan bias and negligence. The company’s stunning failure to properly enforce its own high-profile policy at such a critical time has raised alarm about its preparedness for the fallout of the election — the results of which could be inconclusive for days or even weeks.

From the start, the policy was transparently more of a PR stunt than an effective election integrity measure, Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of the nonprofit Accountable Tech, told HuffPost after the ban began on Tuesday.

“[Facebook’s] implementation certainly has only inspired more fears over how they’re going to be able to handle these last-minute election-specific rollouts,” Lehrich said. “It constantly feels like they’re dealing with optics — they’re thinking of everything as optical problems and never as structural problems.”

Initially, Facebook’s political ads ban was set to end after Election Day. But just hours after the news outlet Fast Company pointed out one of the policy’s glaring flaws — a candidate could still falsely declare victory in an ad before the results are known — Facebook introduced a new rule prohibiting “political ads that claim victory before the results of the 2020 election have been declared,” and later extended the ban indefinitely.

The ban is only supposed to apply for new political ads; those approved before Tuesday are eligible to run as usual, per Facebook’s rules, including in the days leading up to Nov. 3. This aspect of the policy is problematic for several reasons.

In anticipation of the ban, Trump’s campaign and other political advertisers submitted thousands of ads for approval right before the deadline. These ads — which are catalogued in Facebook’s public library — can now be switched on- and offline whenever the advertisers please. (Of course, it is near-impossible for the public or fact-checkers to scrutinize such a vast quantity of last-minute ads before next week’s vote, which was supposedly the point of the ban in the first place. Not to mention Facebook specifically exempts political ads from its third-party fact-checking program.)

[hridley21ahsgov]

BLOG POST #3: POLITICAL PARTY ACTION

MY ISSUE: CLIMATE CHANGE

REPUBLICAN: They don’t have a clear stance on climate change. Many Republicans consider it an issue, and others might be in denial of it. However, even with the people who understand, it's a problem they can't speak out on. As I can’t entirely agree with this thinking, I can understand the thought process of not embracing this “democratic” view. Embracing climate change would change the parties’ morals, which the Republicans wouldn’t want as the party has extreme values in the economy, gun rights, and religion. Straying away from these values would be the first step in the collapse of the republican party. The Republicans know they are an outdated party from a moral standpoint, so having a democratic outlook on a significant issue like climate change would destroy their parties following.

DEMOCRAT: True believers in climate change view it as an urgent matter to the economy, national security, and our children’s health. They think that Americans deserve jobs and security coming from the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. They also push ideas and have been arguing about climate change since 1992 when the Senate approved the U.N. framework convention on climate change. Now 38 years later, a document that’s only 15 pages long lays out the framework for a new world. This document is called “The green new deal”, it talks about ideas such as no planes, one hundred percent clear air, and renewable energy by 2030. The democrats are the hardest battering ram to the door of the new world.

LIBERTARIAN: Like Republicans, Libertarians have nothing to contribute to the ever-growing problem of climate change. They are forced to acknowledge the issue, as Libertarians share many political views with republicans capitalizing on Economy, Gun rights, and national defense. The average Libertarian is a white male who might or might not be under the age of 50. When it comes to older voters in any political party, they are less likely to accept change, especially if forced upon them. In an article by “Students for liberty,” Libertarians would tackle climate change and or their a solution to climate change was idiotic. They said that we needed better property boundaries and that we should go by the idea that “anything that happens on my property stays on my property.” Meaning that you can pollute your property for months without caring for the environment. However, it is unacceptable if your pollution spills onto another property. If that sounds like any political party, you know, I might have mentioned them at the start.

GREEN: When addressing climate change, no party except for democracy can match the enthusiasm and policy that the green party has. The party was built off of the ideas of environmentalism, social justice, and eco-socialism. In a broader term, their view of their party could be summarized as “world peace”. However, the party was founded 19 years ago and is relatively small compared to the two dominating parties. However, their climate change policies are more detailed and thought out than any of the two parties. They had solutions to get greenhouse emissions down 40% by 2020. They had proposals of climate treaties to stop runaway climate change. They had plans to repay our climate debt by providing development cheaper than fossil fuels. And most importantly, they had well thought out jobs to help transition workers from coal and fossil fuels industries to renewable energy-based jobs. Which “The green new deal” took and attached and was shown in 2019 by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. To say the green party didn’t trail-blaze putting climate change on the political scale today would be an understatement. Right now, the green party’s ideology might seem very fairy tale-like and science fiction-like, but in fact, they are just before their time. 

 PEACE AND FREEDOM: When you hear the name “peace and freedom” in today’s political landscape, it is primarily associated with the conservative parties. However, for this party, that’s not the case. The peace and freedom party is considered a very left-wing and progressive political party. Founded on June 23, 1967, their main ideologies still stand today being Feminism, Pro peace, and Socialism. They also have strong policies on climate change that are identical to the democrats. They advocate for environmental jobs, condemn places with a rise in pollution, and march for 100% renewable energy. The only apparent difference that sets this party apart from the other parties is their dedication to job equality. However, this party is small on the political scale, especially when you compare it to the green party and the Libertarians, which are also considered small. In the end, though, this party’s views on climate change have shown great longevity since its origin and will continue to shine as they become more well known. 

REFLECTION:

As a democrat myself, it’s hard to stray away from a party that you’ve followed your entire political career. However, the green party policies far exceeded anything I expected and truly impressed me on their evolution as a party in their small span of 19 years. With that being said, would I vote for any candidate that came from the green party right now, “No”? If the party got more prominent and more fledged out and respected and had more transparent and personal candidates, would I reconsider my statement, “yes”? Their party is in its infant stage, and even though I can identify with it the most, I can see a future where they are a popular party in a non-two-party dominated system.

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ASSESSMENT:

My civic action was brought up during the debate and was executed interestingly by both candidates. Trump said that he wanted to have clear water and clean energy. This is incredibly hard to agree with as Trump lifted massive restrictions set by the Obama administration for fossil fuel production and then thrashed “The green new deal” right in front of Joe Biden. On the other hand, Joe Biden talked about his nearly 2 trillion dollar climate change plan that would expand for decades. Creating active jobs for renewable energy and creating areas from clean energy. I agree with his plan, and I think it is a clear step in the right direction. His argument’s effectiveness was cut short as the other candidate kept interrupting him and kept repeating that Joe Biden’s 2 trillion dollar climate plan was the green new deal, which isn’t true. Both parties didn’t contradict themself entirely; Joe Biden went with a middle, not extreme left-wing plan on tackling climate change. And Trump talked about wanting clean water and clean air, which I think every human that’s ever lived could agree that’s a good trait to have. 

[opedguy]

LeBron James Question U.S. on Britney Griner

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), July 14, 2022.--NBA’s first active billionaire player 37-year-old LeBron James questioned in an episode of “The Shop” whether the U.S. government has done enough to get 31-year-old NBA star Britney Griner out of a Russian jail.  LeBron filmed the episode over a month ago when there was nothing in the news about 79-year-old President Joe Biden and his 59-year-old Secretary of State Antony Blinken doing anything substantial to execute necessary prisoner swap or whatever to get Griner out of a Moscow jail.  Griner was arrested Feb. 17 at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport for cannabis possession, contained in vape-cartridges with hash-oil found in her luggage.  Britney, on the advice of her Russian attorney, pled guilty July 7 to a Moscow judge, putting facts of her case not in dispute.  Griner said she had no intent of breaking Russian law on her way to play for Russian UMMC Ekaterinburg basketball team.

Britney’s cannabis possession incident could not have come at a worse time considering the state of war between the United States and Russian Federation.  LeBron James, making his statement a month ago on “The Shop,” irked folks thinking, at least now, the Biden White House was doing everything possible to get Britney out of Russia.  ”She’s been there over 110 days. Now how can she feel like America has her back?  I would be feeling like, do I even want to go back to America,” James said, talking it up in his barber-shop-format talk show.  James had to walk his comments back from widespread criticism questioning his patriotism.  What’s clear from the “The Shop” episode, it happened over a month ago, since Britney has been incarcerated 144 days today.  Criticism heaped on James was misplaced, since at the time he filmed the episode, little had been done for Griner.

Griner’s situation could not be worse by the Biden White House, currently prosecuting a five-month-old proxy war, using Ukrainian troops and U.S. weapons to topple the Russian Federation.  White House officials only recently contracted with 74-year-old former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former U.N. ambassador and Bill Clinton Energy Secretary, whose think tank “The Richardson Center” specializes in hostage negotiation.  Whether or not Richardson can do anything to get Griner out remains unknown.  James, at the time of taped “The Shop“ had no idea about all the efforts underway to get Griner out of a Moscow jail.  But what James and other don’t get is no matter what the efforts the White House, they only have so much clout with 69-year-old Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Putin and the Kremlin know that Biden seeks to topple his government.

All the criticism on LeBron James makes good headlines and segments for sports talk shows but it’s entirely misplaced.  Anger should go to President Biden for going the war against the Russian Federation, at a time when the U.S. needs all the friends, including enemies, it can get.  If Biden and Blinken preserved some measure of diplomacy between the U.S. and Moscow, getting Griner out of a Moscow jail would be a whole lot easier.  Russian Foreign Minister Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said today that Russian authorities are fully aware of the Pentagon providing training in Ukraine on HIMARS, long-range missile systems, designed to change the battlefield.  So when it comes to getting Britney Griner out of a Russian jail, it’s going to come with a high price tag because of Biden’s abysmal relations with Putin.  Biden said March 26 in Warsaw, Poland that Putin should not remain Russian president.

James would have no way of knowing the wretched state of diplomatic affairs between the U.S. and Russia.  U.S.-Russian relations are worse than U.S. relations with Iran, where there are no diplomatic relations at all since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. What’s worse about U.S.-Russian relations is the fact that Biden started a proxy war using Ukrainian troops against the Russian Federation. Biden said he would not commit U.S. boots-on-the-ground oin Ukraine to avoid WW III.  So instead of giving Ukraine the help it needed, Biden has given Ukraine a black check to fund its bankrupt government and the war with the Kremlin.  Zakharova said today the Kremlin is well-aware of the U.S. supplying-and-training Ukrainian fighters in advanced long-range missile systems.  All of this back-story doesn’t bode well for Britney’s release without Biden paying a king’s ransom to get her out.

All the misguided criticism of LeBron James stems from pure envy by the sports media, who, for the most part, earn a meager living, looking at LeBron the same way folks look at billionaires like Elon Musk. How many in the U.S. press, another meager profession, shows any support for Musk, who, single-handedly, created the electric care revolution around the planet.  What hypocrisy from the media that finds nothing good to say about Musk, whose SpaceX rocket company put U.S. astronauts back in space after NASA’s Space Shuttle retired because of old age in 2011.  Now the media wants to slam Musk for his Twitter purchase or any objections he has about the deal.  James should know that the sports media is filled with have-nots, jealous athletes like James that have become so accomplished.  When it comes to Britney Girner, ask Biden why he’s at war with the Russian Federation?

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.