Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

EXPOSED: Pro regime-change USAid worker disguised as EU delegate helps organise anti-Duterte “protest”

The US continues to meddle in the sovereign affairs of the democracy in Philippines.

Published

on

12,666 Views

Yesterday, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte made headlines for slamming an alleged group of EU representatives holding a protest in favour of returning to the old lax drug laws in the country. The EU, both at an official and unofficial level, has threatened to withdraw funds from Philippines over President Duterte’s push to eliminate the drug and associated crime problem from his country. Duterte remains highly popular in Philippines as a result of his campaign.

Duterte blasted the so-called EU delegation saying,

“You think that we are a bunch of morons here. Because we can have the diplomatic channel cut tomorrow. You leave my country in 24 hours. All. All of you!”

He continued,

“We are past colonisation stage. We will be excluded in the UN? You son of a bitch. Go ahead. You are interfering in our affairs because we are poor. You give money and then you start to orchestrate what things should be done”.

While the EU was quick to distance itself from the group of rogue delegates who did not represent the Brussels body in anything approaching an official capacity, veteran Philippine diplomat Rigoberto Tiglao has exposed something even more dangerous about the delegation.

While the delegation purported to all be compromised of EU officials, there was one man among the crowd who represented the notorious American organisation USAid, a state-run body which typically falsely characterises itself as an NGO. USAId earned an infamous reputation in Russia during the 1990s, when the group helped funnel millions of Dollars into political and business interests that took a pro-US line. The group was further accused of aiding the CIA in the open meddling conducted by Washington in the 1996 Russian Presidential election.

Since 2012, USAid has been banned in Russia, but the organisation continues to agitate for regime change against anti-colonial, sovereignty minded governments around the world.

Tiglao writes the following about the delegation,

“What is worrying though—over which our government should file a diplomatic protest—is that one of the seven supposedly “European” parliamentarians protesting the alleged killings by the Duterte administration, is actually an American government official, Thomas O. Melia, assistant administrator for Europe and Asia of the US government’s Agency for International Development. Is it now US official policy to destabilize this government through allegations of human rights violations?

We have lost all sense of nationalism and integrity as an independent people if we are not angry at the PDI’s front page. It insults our country on three levels.

Firstly, we should be mad at such a brazen interference in our domestic affairs. We are a sovereign country with our own Constitution, our own body of laws. What right do these Europeans have to meddle in our affairs, when we obviously still have the rule of law.

Have they meddled over the US invasion of Iraq; over the hundreds of Muslims kidnapped by the US and tortured in their Guantanamo fortress, many kept nearly a decade without charges; over alleged genocide of the Rohingya in Burma; or even over the ruthless police brutality in their continent, in Catalonia?”

He went on to describe many of these NGOs as “mostly small-time but noisy NGO activists in their countries”.

Below is a photograph of the “protest” with the USAId official Thomas O. Melia, circled in red.

A further photo of the disingenuous delegation shows the “protesters” standing behind a banner of the Akbayan organisation. Akbayan is widely understood as little more than an arm of the Liberal Party of Philippines, which has been working to oust President Duterte from office, ever since his election.

This hammers home the grim reality that an American organisation with known ties to the CIA and other ‘deep state’ bodies in Washington, is actively working with agitation minded groups in Philippines, to meddle in the domestic political affairs of Manila’s democracy. While the US continues to accuse Russia of meddling in the 2016 American Presidential election, in spite of uncovering no evidence, in Philippines the US itself has been continually attempting to undermine, destabilise and delegitimise the administration of Rodrigo Duterte.

One of the reasons the US continues to meddle in Philippine democracy is due to President Duterte’s geo-political pivot away from a post-colonial United States and towards both China and Russia, in a policy which looks to assert the independence of Manila in all foreign policy making matters.

During a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, the Chinese leadership hailed the Duterte era as a “golden period” in relations between the two countries.

DUTERTE’S TRIUMPH: China hails “golden period” of relations with Philippines

Duterte has also spoken with President Putin in Moscow about creating new security and economic avenues between Manila and a Russian government which continues to seek business opportunities among the ASEAN countries.

Philippines President Duterte slams America on eve of Putin meeting

Now that Russia and Syria have both shown that ISIS colluding with US special forces and the US proxy militia SDF in the Middle East, many statements linking ISIS activity on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao (Duterte’s birthplace) to an attempt by dark forces within the Washington regime to further destabilise Philppines by funding radical terrorist groups, takes on a newly worrying character. Indeed, Duterte had pledged to bring peace to the Moro (Philippine Muslim) communities of the south who for decades have been engage in a struggle against Manila. It is clear that some foreign force has funded ISIS linked terrorists in Philippines in order to attempt and throw Duterte’s peace process into disarray.

5 reasons ISIS targeted Duterte’s Philippines

Because Duterte’s domestic opposition is so wildly unpopular in Philippines and is seen as exacerbating a poor economic situation as well as either ignoring the drug problem or otherwise taking bribes from drug lords, there is little that Washington can do in Philippines other than inject foreign money into the country in order to foment a would-be “colour revolution” against the legitimate leader of Philippines. The opposition communists once spoke of direct knowledge of CIA meddling in Philippines, a claim which can only be viewed as more serious in light of the unwelcome presence of USAid in Manila.

Here’s what Rodrigo Duterte can do to avoid a CIA coup against his Presidency

Far from being a “dictator” as the US and EU often alleges, Duterte has championed popular democracy and frequently speaks directly with many Philippine citizens including members of various small but vocal opposition groups. Furthermore, Duterte is committed to the existing Constitutional order which only allows for a single 6 year presidential term.

However, in light of the fact that Duterte is facing an uphill battle to implement his program, due to foreign meddling, he should perhaps consider the options I discussed in a previous Duran piece.

“In 1986, the new President of Philippines, Corazon “Cory” Aquino abolished the 1973 Constitution of Ferdinand Marcos and proclaimed a Revolutionary Government. This allowed Aquino time to re-draft a new set of national laws and a new constitution while also removing certain members of the previous regime from power.

According to what Aquino called ‘Proclamation No. 3’, she acquired both executive and legislative powers during the period of Revolutionary Government.

Recently, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has touted the idea of pursuing a similar form of revolutionary government, although he stopped short of saying that he intends to implement such reforms at this time….

Duterte later described Cory Aquino’s failure to fully purge government posts of former officials as a “golden opportunity missed”.

While Duterte stated that he “isn’t into” such things, the fact that Duterte mentioned that he has considered a Revolutionary Government, is indicative of the reality that many of Duterte’s supporters who stand at around 90% of the Philippines population, would be inclined to want Duterte to lead such a revolutionary government.

It is not difficult to see why. Duterte’s policies and his style of government are indeed revolutionary. Duterte has presented Philippines with a political program which calls for vast changes to the way the country is run.

 The President has proposed federalism as a peaceful means to quill local discontents, he has pledged a more equitable distribution of the country’s wealth and resources and he has pledged to tackle the problems of high crime and terrorism that are inexorably linked to the dangerous drug problems in Philippines. 

Philippines is in need of the kind of economic boom that Vietnam experienced in the 1990s and into the 2000s as well as that which China experienced during the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. The central location of Philippines in Asia, its good climate, its young workforce and English literacy are all things that economists have pointed to which would indicate that Philippines should be a booming economy.

The biggest factors holding Philippines back are the crime problems related to drug trafficking and drug use. By cleansing Philippines of this problem, serious investment would more readily flow in and the country could get back to work in a crime free, healthy and productive environment.

In order for Duterte to execute his revolutionary aims for justice, prosperity and a more healthy society, he cannot afford to be held back by legislators who refuse to cooperate with the will of the people that has been expressed by the large support that President Duterte still enjoys. This is especially true since Presidents of Philippines are limited to a single six year term.

If Duterte wants to fully implement his revolutionary policies, it is only fitting that he should at least temporarily lead a revolutionary government. The precedent set by Cory Aquino is there. Proclamation No. 3 was put into place as recently as 1986. What has transpired in the subsequent decades in Philippines has not been such a sacred success story that such a provision cannot be exercised again.

The changes that Rodrigo Duterte seeks to make in Philippines are no less revolutionary than that which transpired in 1986 at the end of the Marcos era. Duterte owes it to his supporters and to his nation to lead a Revolutionary Government that can truly set Philippines on course to be a safe, prosperous and healthy Asian economic power that it has always had the potential to be.

If Duterte succumbs to the power of his opponents, future generations will look at the Duterte Presidency as another “golden opportunity lost”. Duterte has the chance to seize the opportunity and win even more support for doing so. The only other viable option which exists before the nation is for Duterte’s opponents to stop trying to strangle the country’s political system with legal deadlock and accept that the people have spoken in favour of Duterte and that the popular will should not be hindered due to the egotism of the old political guard.

A brighter future for Philippines is at President Duterte’s fingertips. In the opposite direction stands a permanent political deadlock that does nothing but undermine Duterte’s mandate from the people”.

PHILIPPINES: Duterte needs a Revolutionary Government in order to implement his revolutionary policies

If a nuclear superpower like Russia took the step to ban USAid, one can extrapolate how much more dangerous such a group is to a smaller country like Philippines. Cuba has also been frequently harassed by USAid, thus demonstrating a specific penchant of the group the invoke a neo-colonial attitude among free countries that were once controlled by Washington.

It is imperative that President Duterte secures his position so that he can do what Filipinos elected him to do. Desperate times certainly call for unique measures. This is all the more reason that Duterte’s revolutionary policies mandate the presence of a revolutionary government in order to allow the President to maintain the peace, safety, prosperity and security of the people of Philippines as well as the sovereignty of the state.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
1 Comment

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
Viczter C. Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Viczter C.
Guest
Viczter C.

Thanks Adam, sharing this to my kababayans, kabansa

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Vladimir Putin visits Serbia, as NATO encircles the country it attacked in 1999 (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 171.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Serbia.

Putin met with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to further develop bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as discuss pressing regional issues including the possibility of extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline into Serbia, and the dangerous situation around Kosovo.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Russian President Vladimir Putin got a hero’s welcome in Belgrade. The one-day visit to the last holdout against NATO’s ambitions in the Balkans may have been somewhat short on substance, but was certainly loaded with symbolism.

Even before he landed, the Russian leader was given an honor guard by Serbian air force MiGs, a 2017 gift from Moscow to replace those destroyed by NATO during the 1999 air campaign that ended with the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo. Russia has refused to recognize Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence, while the US and EU have insisted on it.

Upon landing, Putin began his first official trip of 2019 by paying respects to the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Belgrade from Nazi occupation in 1944. While most Serbians haven’t forgotten their historical brotherhood in arms with Russia, it did not hurt to remind the West just who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany back in World War II.

After official talks with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, Putin visited the Church of St. Sava, the grand Orthodox basilica set on the spot where the Ottoman Turks torched the remains of the first Serbian archbishop back in 1594, in an effort to maintain power.

Sava, whose brother Stefan became the “first-crowned” king of medieval Serbia, was responsible for setting up the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church exactly eight centuries ago this year. For all its own troubles, the Serbian Church has sided with Moscow in the current Orthodox schism over Ukraine.

Russian artisans have been working on the grand mosaic inside the basilica, and asked Putin to complete the design by placing the last three pieces, in the colors of the Russian flag.

Whether by sheer coincidence or by design, Putin also weighed in on Serbia’s culture war, giving interviews ahead of his visit to two daily newspapers that still publish in Serbian Cyrillic – while the majority of the press, whether controlled by the West or by Vucic, prefers the Latin variant imported from Croatia.

Western media usually refer to Serbia as a “Russian ally.” While this is true in a historical and cultural sense, there is no formal military alliance between Moscow and Belgrade. Serbia officially follows the policy of military neutrality, with its armed forces taking part in exercises alongside both Russian and NATO troops.

This is a major source of irritation for NATO, which seeks dominion over the entire Balkans region. Most recently, the alliance extended membership to Montenegro in 2017 without putting the question to a referendum. It is widely expected that “Northern Macedonia” would get an invitation to NATO as soon as its name change process is complete – and that was arranged by a deal both Macedonia and Greece seem to have been pressured into by Washington.

That would leave only Serbia outside the alliance – partly, anyway, since NATO has a massive military base in the disputed province of Kosovo, and basically enjoys special status in that quasi-state. Yet despite Belgrade’s repeated declarations of Serbia wanting to join the EU, Brussels and Washington have set recognition of Kosovo as the key precondition – and no Serbian leader has been able to deliver on that just yet, though Vucic has certainly tried.

Putin’s repeated condemnations of NATO’s 1999 attack, and Russian support for Serbia’s territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have made him genuinely popular among the Serbs, more so than Vucic himself. Tens of thousands of people showed up in Belgrade to greet the Russian president.

While Vucic’s critics have alleged that many of them were bused in by the government – which may well be true, complete with signs showing both Vucic and Putin – there is no denying the strong pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia, no matter how hard Integrity Initiative operatives have tried.

One of the signs spotted in Belgrade reportedly said “one of 300 million,” referring to the old Serbian joke about there being “300 million of us – and Russians.” However, it is also a send-up of the slogan used by current street protesters against Vucic. For the past six weeks, every Saturday, thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, declaring themselves “1 of 5 million” after Vucic said he wouldn’t give in to their demands even if “five million showed up.”

The opposition Democrats accuse him of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, cronyism – all the sins they themselves have plenty of experience with during their 12-year reign following Serbia’s color revolution. Yet they’ve had to struggle for control of the marches with the nationalists, who accuse Vucic of preparing to betray Kosovo and want “him to go away, but [Democrats] not come back.”

There is plenty of genuine discontent in Serbia with Vucic, who first came to power in 2012 on a nationalist-populist platform but quickly began to rule as a pro-NATO liberal. It later emerged that western PR firms had a key role in his party’s “makeover” from Radicals to Progressives. Yet his subsequent balancing act between NATO and Russia has infuriated both the NGOs and politicians in Serbia beholden to Western interests, and US diplomats charged with keeping the Balkans conquered.

Washington is busy with its own troubles these days, so there was no official comment to Putin’s visit from the State Department – only a somewhat pitiful and tone-deaf tweet by Ambassador Kyle Scott, bemoaning the lack of punishment for $1 million in damages to the US Embassy during a 2008 protest against Kosovo “independence.” Yet as far as Western media outlets are concerned, why Moscow seems to be vastly more popular than Washington on the streets of Belgrade nonetheless remains a mystery.

By Nebojsa Malic

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon And Progressive Alliance To Destroy Donald Trump

The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via OffGuardian.com:


The Roman poet Ovid’s masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line regarding the poem’s central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora, which has been translated as “Of shapes transformed to bodies strange, I purpose to entreat…”

Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel.

The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of “strong national defense” to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration’s “weakness.”

The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.

When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran.

Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald reports that, based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or Afghanistan.

The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency because America’s elite is behind that effort.

Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons’ Center for American Progress (CAP) is now working on position papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together(DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not “stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin” and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election.

DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causesin the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.

Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark, which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance” and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it.

Iranian-born Omidyar’s relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two share regarding Donald Trump.

Omidyar has stated that Trump is a “dangerous authoritarian demagogue… endorsing Donald Trump immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust.”

He has tweeted that Trump suffers from “failing mental capacity” and is both “corrupt and incapacitated.”

Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive reasons. That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar’s money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending