Connect with us

Latest

News

CNN is the Clinton News Network. Wikileaks proves CNN and DNC colluded before Donald Trump interview

CNN and the DNC worked together to formulate the list of questions for a Donald Trump interview according to new emails released by WikiLeaks

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

519 Views

Yesterday Wikileaks announced the release of hacked DNC emails entitled #DNCLeak2.

The new Wikileaks dump has over 8,000 unseen, hacked DNC emails, which will most certainly be attributed to Russian hackers with no evidence backing those claims whatsoever, cue Robby Mook and Donna Brazile.

In one of the emails, DNC members were tipped off, in advance, of a forthcoming Wolf Blitzer interview of Donald Trump. The DNC members were then given the opportunity to prepare the list of questions for Trump.

In the email below Lauren Dillon of the DNC, send out group email asking everyone what questions Wolf Blitzer should ask Trump…

screen-shot-2016-11-07-at-11-46-40-am

“Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed. Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow. Thanks!”

Wolf Blitzer is very much in the tank with HRC. He can be seen below drinking and dancing after Hillary Clinton stole the primary election from Bernie Sanders.

The interview was ultimately cancelled, but the DNC made a note that the questions they offered CNN are “Good to have for others as well”…

screen-shot-2016-11-07-at-12-00-12-pm


Here are the questions in full below, as released by Wikileaks.

The DNC focuses their questions for Wolf Blitzer and CNN around Trump’s foreign policy platform and his ability to lead. The questions also cover North and South Korea, the UN and ISIS.


From:[email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] more
Date: 2016-04-25 13:59
Subject: RE: Trump Questions for CNN

CNN said the interview was cancelled as of now but will keep the questions for the next one 🙁

Good to have for others as well.

Updated here:

– Who helped you write the foreign policy speech you’re giving tomorrow? Which advisors specifically did you talk to? What advice did they give you? Did they give you any advice that you chose not to take?

-A number of Republicans and think tanks including the Heritage Foundation have suggested tying defense spending to GDP, most often suggesting defense should be funded at 4 percent GDP. Is that something you would do/we’ll see in your plan?

– You’ve said you look to Ambassador John Bolton for military advice and called him “terrific,” but he was one of the architects of the Iraq war. How do you explain your praise for Bolton if you also claim the war was a mistake? What advice have you taken from him?

* TODD: “Who do you talk to for military advice right now?” TRUMP: “Well, I watch the shows. I really see a lot of great — when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals and you have certain people that you like.” TODD: “But is there somebody — is there a go to for you?” TRUMP: “Probably there are two or three.” TODD: “Every presidential candidate has a go-to.” TRUMP: “Well, probably there are two or three. I like Bolton, I think he’s a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about. Jacobs is a good guy.” TODD: “Do you mean Ambassador John Bolton–” TRUMP: “Yes. I think he’s terrific–.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 8/16/15]

– CIA Director Brennan and former CIA Director Hayden have both said that our military and intelligence officers might refuse to follow some of your orders if you were president. You’ve said that the military would in fact listen, but what would you do if the military refused to listen to you? Should they be court-martialed if they refuse to follow orders?

* Asked What He Would Do If The Military Refused To Obey His Illegal Orders, Trump Said “They’re Not Going To Refuse Me. Believe Me.” BAIER: “General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?” TRUMP: “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.” BAIER: “But they’re illegal.” [Republican Primary Debate, Detroit MI, 3/3/16]

* Trump: “If I Say Do It, They’re Going To Do It. That’s What Leadership Is All About.” BAIER: “But targeting terrorists’ families?” (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: “And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.” [Republican Primary Debate, Detroit MI, 3/3/16]

– Do you think American victims of 9/11 should be able to sue Saudi Arabia in court? What role, if any, do you think Saudi Arabia had in the 9/11 attacks?

– You’ve said we should have bombed the “right people” after 9/11 and have suggested that the government has evidence Saudi Arabia was involved. Do you think we should have instead bombed Saudi Arabia?

* Trump Said We Needed To Bomb The “Right People,” The “People That Knocked Down The World Trade Center” And That Was Not Saddam Hussein. TRUMP: “No, I’m saying that, certainly, it would have been nice if the federal government could have given some of the trillion dollars that we’ve spent on Iraq. And by the way, I’m worse of a hawk than anybody. I’m worse than Roger Ailes, and that’s pretty bad, OK? But you’ve got to bomb the right people. You’ve got to bomb the right — the people that knocked down the World Trade Center. It was not the people of Iraq, and it was not Saddam Hussein. It’s sort of interesting. Saddam Hussein used to kill terrorists. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. I mean, that’s the Harvard of terrorism. So it’s a very, very sad situation.” [Cavuto, Fox Business, 12/17/08]

* Trump Suggested The Redacted Pages Of The 9/11 Report Would Reveal That Saudi Arabia Blew Up The World Trade Center. “‘Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi – take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents,’ Trump told the gang at Fox & Friends Wednesday morning, after defending his bizarre theory that George W. Bush was president on September 11. Trump appeared to be referencing the 28 pages that were redacted from the 2002 Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.” [New York Magazine, 2/17/16<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-suggests-the-saudis-did-911.html>]

– Would you order U.S. troops to withdraw from South Korea if they refused to pay us, and if so, how quickly?

* Trump Said He Was Willing To Withdraw U.S. Forces From Japan And South Korea If They Did Not Increase Their Financial Contribution. HABERMAN: “Would you be willing to withdraw U.S. forces from places like Japan and South Korea if they don’t increase their contribution significantly?” TRUMP: “Yes, I would. I would not do so happily, but I would be willing to do it. Not happily. David actually asked me that question before, this morning before we sort of finalized out. The answer is not happily but the answer is yes. We cannot afford to be losing vast amounts of billions of dollars on all of this. We just can’t do it anymore. Now there was a time when we could have done it. When we started doing it. But we can’t do it anymore. And I have a feeling that they’d up the ante very much. I think they would, and if they wouldn’t I would really have to say yes.” [Donald Trump Interview, New York Times, 3/26/16<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0>]

– How many military bases do you think the U.S. should have in Southeast Asia?

* Trump Said He Did Not Think The U.S. Gained Anything By Having Military Bases In South Korea And Japan. LANE: “You know, well, they say and I think this is on public record, it’s basically 50 percent of the non-personnel cost is paid by South Korea and Japan.” TRUMP: “50 percent?” LANE: “Yeah.” TRUMP: “Why isn’t it 100 percent?” HIATT: “Well I guess the question is, does the United States gain anything by having bases?” TRUMP: “Personally I don’t think so. I personally don’t think so. Look. I have great relationships with South Korea. I have buildings in South Korea. But that’s a wealthy country. They make the ships, they make the televisions, they make the air conditioning. They make tremendous amounts of products. It’s a huge, it’s a massive industrial complex country.” [Editorial Board Interview, Washington Post, 3/21/16<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/>]

– You’ve said that you would listen to our generals if they called to send 20,000 troops in to fight ISIS, then later said you would find it hard to go along with those troop levels. Which one is it? Would you listen to the troop levels our generals called for? If not, how many troops do you think is appropriate to send in to combat ISIS?

* Trump Said He “Would Listen To The Generals” But Was “Hearing Numbers Of 20,000 To 30,000” Ground Troops To Fight ISIS In Syria. HEWITT: “Mr. Trump, more troops?” TRUMP: “We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them, we have to get rid of it and then we have to come back here and rebuild our country, which is falling apart.” HEWITT: “How many?” TRUMP: “I would listen to the generals but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast. We have to knock them out fast. Look, we’re not allowed to fight. We can’t fight. We’re not knocking out the oil because they don’t want to create environmental pollution up in the air.” [Republican Primary Debate, Miami FL, 3/10/16]

* Trump: “I Find It Hard To Go Along With” The Generals’ Suggestion For 20- To 30,000 Troops “Because It’s So Much.” DIEHL: “And could I ask you about ISIS, speaking of making commitments, because you talked recently about possibly sending 20 or 30,000 troops and–” TRUMP: “No I didn’t, oh no no no, okay, I know what you’re saying. There was a question asked to me. I said that the military, the generals have said that 20- to 30,000. They said, would you send troops? I didn’t say send 20,000. I said, well the generals are saying you’d need because they , what would it take to wipe out ISIS, I said pretty much exactly this, I said the generals, the military is saying you would need 20- to 30,000 troops, but I didn’t say that I would send them.” DIEHL: “If they said that, would you go along with that and send the troops?” TRUMP: “I find it hard to go along with-I mention that as an example because it’s so much. That’s why I brought that up. But a couple of people have said the same thing as you, where they said did I say that and I said that that’s a number that I heard would be needed. I would find it very, very hard to send that many troops to take care of it.” [Editorial Board Interview, Washington Post, 3/21/16<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/>]

– You’ve said that the U.S. disproportionately funded the U.N., should we reduce our funding to the United Nations? How much should we reduce it by? If we get nothing out of the U.N, why should we continue to be a member of it?

* Trump Said We Disproportionately Funded The United Nations And Got Nothing Out Of It. TRUMP: “You know, I’ll give you another one, I talked about NATO and we fund disproportionately, the United Nations, we get nothing out of the United Nations other than good real estate prices. We get nothing out of the United Nations. They don’t respect us, they don’t do what we want, and yet we fund them disproportionately again. Why are we always the ones that funds everybody disproportionately, you know? So everything is like that.” [New York Times Interview, 3/26/16<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0>]

– Which international organizations should the U.S. be a member of? Which treaties do you think it is valuable the U.S. remain a part of?

– In 2000, you said you supported a pre-emptive strike against North Korea if it would keep them from getting nuclear weapons. Do you still support that?

* Trump: Am I Ready To Bomb North Korea’s Reactor? “You’re Damned Right.” “What would I do in North Korea? Fair question. It’s easy to point out the problem, but what should we do to solve it? Am I ready to bomb this reactor? You’re damned right.” [Donald Trump, The America We Deserve, 1/15/00]

* Trump: “A Surgical Strike Would Not Only Put Out The Fire In North Korea, But It Would Also Send A Message Around The World That The United States Is Going To Eliminate Any Serious Threat To Its Security, And Do So Without Apology.” [Donald Trump, The America We Deserve, 1/15/00]

From: Freundlich, Christina
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:34 AM
To: Roberts, Kelly; Dillon, Lauren; Sarge, Matthew; Graham, Caroline; Walker, Eric; Bauer, Nick; Brinster, Jeremy
Subject: RE: Trump Questions for CNN

Obviously I think these are all great. lauren?

From: Roberts, Kelly
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Dillon, Lauren; Freundlich, Christina; Sarge, Matthew; Graham, Caroline; Walker, Eric; Bauer, Nick; Brinster, Jeremy
Subject: RE: Trump Questions for CNN

This is the list Brinster, Sarge and I came up with:

– Who helped you write the foreign policy speech you’re giving tomorrow? Which advisors specifically did you talk to? What advice did they give you? Did they give you any advice that you chose not to take?

– CIA Director Brennan and former CIA Director Hayden have both said that our military and intelligence officers might refuse to follow some of your orders if you were president. What would you do if the military refused to listen to you? Should they be court-martialed if they refuse to follow orders?

– You’ve said you look to Ambassador John Bolton for military advice and called him “terrific,” but he was one of the architects of the Iraq war. How do you explain your praise for Bolton if you also claim the war was a mistake? What advice have you taken from him?

* TODD: “Who do you talk to for military advice right now?” TRUMP: “Well, I watch the shows. I really see a lot of great — when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals and you have certain people that you like.” TODD: “But is there somebody — is there a go to for you?” TRUMP: “Probably there are two or three.” TODD: “Every presidential candidate has a go-to.” TRUMP: “Well, probably there are two or three. I like Bolton, I think he’s a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about. Jacobs is a good guy.” TODD: “Do you mean Ambassador John Bolton–” TRUMP: “Yes. I think he’s terrific–.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 8/16/15]

– Do you think American victims of 9/11 should be able to sue Saudi Arabia in court? What role, if any, do you think Saudi Arabia had in the 9/11 attacks?

– You’ve said we should have bombed the “right people” after 9/11 and have suggested that the government has evidence Saudi Arabia was involved. Do you think we should have instead bombed Saudi Arabia?

* Trump Said We Needed To Bomb The “Right People,” The “People That Knocked Down The World Trade Center” And That Was Not Saddam Hussein. TRUMP: “No, I’m saying that, certainly, it would have been nice if the federal government could have given some of the trillion dollars that we’ve spent on Iraq. And by the way, I’m worse of a hawk than anybody. I’m worse than Roger Ailes, and that’s pretty bad, OK? But you’ve got to bomb the right people. You’ve got to bomb the right — the people that knocked down the World Trade Center. It was not the people of Iraq, and it was not Saddam Hussein. It’s sort of interesting. Saddam Hussein used to kill terrorists. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. I mean, that’s the Harvard of terrorism. So it’s a very, very sad situation.” [Cavuto, Fox Business, 12/17/08]

* Trump Suggested The Redacted Pages Of The 9/11 Report Would Reveal That Saudi Arabia Blew Up The World Trade Center. “‘Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi – take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents,’ Trump told the gang at Fox & Friends Wednesday morning, after defending his bizarre theory that George W. Bush was president on September 11. Trump appeared to be referencing the 28 pages that were redacted from the 2002 Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.” [New York Magazine, 2/17/16<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-suggests-the-saudis-did-911.html>]

– Would you order U.S. troops to withdraw from South Korea, and if so, how quickly?

– How many military bases do you think the U.S. should have in Southeast Asia?

– President Obama recently announced he’s sending 250 U.S. special operations troops to Syria to help in the fight against ISIS. How many U.S. troops do you think need to be sent to Syria/Iraq and what do they need to do there?

– You’ve said that the U.S. disproportionately funded the U.N., should we cut our funding to the United Nations? How much should we reduce it by? If we get nothing out of the U.N, why should we continue to be a member of it?

* Trump Said We Disproportionately Funded The United Nations And Got Nothing Out Of It. TRUMP: “You know, I’ll give you another one, I talked about NATO and we fund disproportionately, the United Nations, we get nothing out of the United Nations other than good real estate prices. We get nothing out of the United Nations. They don’t respect us, they don’t do what we want, and yet we fund them disproportionately again. Why are we always the ones that funds everybody disproportionately, you know? So everything is like that.” [New York Times Interview, 3/26/16<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0>]

– Which international organizations should the U.S. be a member of? Which treaties do you think it is valuable the U.S. remain a part of?

– In 2000, you said you supported a pre-emptive strike against North Korea if it would keep them from getting nuclear weapons. Do you still support that?

* Trump: Am I Ready To Bomb North Korea’s Reactor? “You’re Damned Right.” “What would I do in North Korea? Fair question. It’s easy to point out the problem, but what should we do to solve it? Am I ready to bomb this reactor? You’re damned right.” [Donald Trump, The America We Deserve, 1/15/00]

* Trump: “A Surgical Strike Would Not Only Put Out The Fire In North Korea, But It Would Also Send A Message Around The World That The United States Is Going To Eliminate Any Serious Threat To Its Security, And Do So Without Apology.” [Donald Trump, The America We Deserve, 1/15/00]

From: Dillon, Lauren
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:05 AM
To: Freundlich, Christina; Roberts, Kelly; Sarge, Matthew; Graham, Caroline; Walker, Eric; Bauer, Nick; Brinster, Jeremy
Subject: Re: Trump Questions for CNN

Reminder

Kelly please take lead. Folks, send your questions and any necessary backup to Kelly.

On Apr 24, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Dillon, Lauren <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed.

Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow.

Thanks!

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

James Clapper rats out his former boss Barack Obama (Video)

Trump-Russia witch hunt started with order from former US President Barack Obama.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

All roads in the Trump-Russia witch hunt lead to Barack Obama…at least that is what his former intelligence czar James Clapper admitted to fake news, CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper admitted in a CNN interview Saturday that former President Obama instigated the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump and his inner circle of advisors and staffer.

Speaking with Anderson Cooper, Clapper mad the stunning admission…

If it weren’t for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today including Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. President Obama is responsible for that. It was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place.

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

Via Zerohedge

Recall in May, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off a letter to the Department of Justice  demanding unredacted versions of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and former bureau attorney Lisa Page, including one exchange which took place after Strzok had returned from London as part of the recently launched “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”  referring to the White House “running” an unknown investigation.

Strzok had been in London to interview Australian ambassador Alexander Downer about a drunken conversation with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who – after reportedly being fed information – mentioned Russia having Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote: “the White House is running this.” My answer, “well, maybe for you they are.” And of course, I was planning on telling this guy, thanks for coming, we’ve got an hour, but with Bill [Priestap] there, I’ve got no control….

Page: Yeah, whatever (re the WH comment). We’ve got the emails that say otherwise.

With Clapper’s admission that Obama was in the know the whole time, it looks like Peter Strzok’s text message stating “the White House is running this” was spot on.

House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) told Fox’s Maria Bartiromo that the American public needs to see an unredacted version of the Carter Page FISA application.

Continue Reading

Latest

NATO’s eastward push clashes with Church Canons in the Ukraine

Amid other geopolitical machinations on the “Eastern front” there is one that has so far largely passed under the radar although its potential as a crisis detonator (or perhaps more properly, exacerbator) in the Ukraine and the surrounding Eastern Orthodox domains should not be underestimated.

Published

on

Petro Poroshenko meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

Quite “spontaneously,” as these things are, won’t to happen, agitation at state and ecclesiastical levels in the Ukraine has been turned on to demand autocephaly, which in Orthodox church terminology is self-ruled status for the Orthodox religious community in the Ukraine.

But not for just any of the existing communities (there are at least two major ones, the Orthodox church in spiritual communion with the Russian Orthodox patriarchy in Moscow, and a breakaway group espousing all the politically correct Ukrainian nationalist and Russophobic views). Alert and politically savvy readers should have guessed that in this controversy center-stage is the breakaway, NATO-friendly group.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

The seemingly plausible argument is that since the Ukraine is an “independent” country, it is entitled also to have its own “independent” national Orthodox church to go along with that. That may or may not be so, depending on how church authorities in charge of these matters interpret and apply the relevant provisions of church law, or cannons. But before the issue was even presented to higher church councils for a ruling, the Ukrainian government itself avidly jumped into the fray to support its local Russophobic ecclesiastical proteges.

Needless to say, the Moscow Patriarchy affiliate in the Ukraine, which is followed by a majority of believers in that country, has taken a strong stand against the combined offensive against it of the NATO backed regime and its allies, anti-Russian zealots in cassocks. That means that now a new religious front also has been opened in the portion of Ukraine controlled by the Kiev regime.

It is an attempt to complete the process already begun in the spheres of language, culture, education, history, and a number of other key areas, in this case to extirpate the last vestiges of “malign” Russian spiritual influence by severing the last remaining ecclesiastical link to Moscow. Driving the point home are the fervent partisans of the “native” Ukrainian church, led by defrocked former bishop Philaret Denysenko, now styling himself the new Ukrainian patriarch.

The fact that in the early 90s the same Denysenko, who at that time was an Orthodox bishop, had no qualms about putting forward his candidacy for Patriarch of Russia, and that, although a Russian-speaker, he subsequently embraced Ukrainian nationalism and conveniently developed passionate anti-Russian sentiments only after failing to achieve that objective, is beside the point. What matters is that he has now become a willing tool and visible symbol of the hybrid war being waged by NATO against Russia in the region, a war which in this instance has also a vibrant religious component.

What must be making hybrid war experts at the headquarters in Mons and other centers which attend to such matters jubilant is that igniting a religious confrontation in the Ukraine holds for them much more than merely local benefits. It is equivalent to opening a Pandora’s Box in the most literally geopolitical, and not just purely religious sense of the expression. A dispute of this nature cannot be properly settled either within the Ukraine itself or by means of intra-church dialogue between Kiev and Moscow.

In the Orthodox world it is possible for a national church to gain self-rule, or autocephaly, but only under strictly prescribed conditions designed to preserve church unity and harmony. That means, at a minimum, that the consent of the Mother Church (in this case the Moscow Patriarchate) is required, as well as the approval of all the other churches around the world which form the Orthodox communion. And on top of that, to greatly complicate matters, there is also the ambiguous role in this process of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchy in Constantinople (Istanbul).

That see traditionally enjoys the position of “first among equals,” and it is not expected to act unilaterally but in consultation with other churches in resolving important issues. In the last couple of decades, however, it has notably tried to shake off those institutional constraints and has sought to turn itself into the Orthodox equivalent of the Roman Catholic Vatican.

The precarious position of the Ecumenical Patriarchy in Turkey, where it has very few, mostly ethnic Greek, followers remaining and is under heavy, and frankly unreasonable pressure from the essentially hostile Turkish government, since about the middle of the last century has motivated its patriarchs to seek the friendship and protection of Western NATO powers, simply to survive. That protection, however, did not come free of charge. Increasingly, and in particular during the Cold War period, the Ecumenical patriarch has been obligated to actively support various Western political initiatives. The increasingly Islamist complexion of the Turkish regime has now made toeing the Western line an existential necessity to an even greater degree.

Hence the unprecedented move by Poroshenko, during his visit to Turkey in April, taking a practical shortcut to resolve the Ukrainian situation without waiting first for a broad Orthodox Church consensus on the issue to emerge. Instead, Poroshenko urged directly the trapped  Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to personally, and without bothering to consult peers, issue to Denysenko and his Kiev flock a grant of self-rule, in the requested form as patriarch of the NATO-invented and anointed “Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

To sweeten the deal, Poroshenko was supposed to bring in his coffers $25 million collected by devout Ukrainian oligarchs in the US, as a humble offering to patriarch Bartholomew to take a benevolent view of the fervent plea delivered to him on behalf of the Ukrainian faithful. Remarkably, the delivery of only a $10 million gift to the Patriarchy was recorded by the time the pious emoluments actually reached their destination in Istanbul. Where the missing $15 million might have evaporated can only be guessed, but given the Ukrainians’ sticky fingers when handling cash it does not require a long stretch of the imagination.

Predictably, the Russian Orthodox Patriarchy took a very dim view of such back-door church politicking lubricated with plenty of cash, even if one considers only the diminished sum that actually reached the designated recipients. Its foreign relations spokesman, Metropolitan Hilarion, warned the patriarch in Istanbul that he was playing with fire by turning a receptive ear to Kiev’s entreaties because, in his view, granting Ukrainian church self-rule (autocephaly) in disregard of canonical regulations would be “to cause a Great Schism equivalent to the one that occurred a thousand years ago”.

It should not be forgotten that this is no idle threat because the Russian church is the most numerous among Orthodox nations and a split between it and the Ecumenical see in Istanbul would plunge the entire Orthodox world into disarray. But that is just what the NATO doctors ordered, isn’t it?

It is, of course, quite normal for officials of the Russian church to seek to protect their faithful and safeguard their status in the Ukraine. But the impending, NATO-engineered convulsion, using the alleged spiritual needs of its Ukrainian colony as a hollow pretext, unleashed within the Orthodox religious community which sits astride the arc of geopolitical competition stretching from the Balkans to Russia, and from the Black Sea basin into the Caucasus, with a significant historical presence throughout the Middle East, is fraught with serious implications.

For one thing, its clear purpose is to add another layer to the campaign to “isolate Russia,” this time around by disrupting Russia’s spiritual and cultural ties to other kindred Orthodox lands, which may soon face a contrived “religious” choice between Moscow and Istanbul. The fact that the “choice” is couched in seemingly canonical rather than unapologetically and crudely political terms, makes it no less political.

Via Strategic Culture

Continue Reading

Terrorism

Possible terror attack at California mall thwarted by anti-jihad activist

Angry Muslim women and a shady Muslim man’s carefully-placed backpack were all part of the terrorism scene at the LA shopping mall on July 7.

Published

on

Los Cerritos Center, Los Angeles. Photo: losangeles.cbslocal.com

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office and the Los Cerritos Shopping Center are hush hush for now. It’s not yet clear if it was an attempted terror attack or just a dry run, but what is clear enough is that an observant anti-jihad activist thwarted the plans of some ill-intentioned Muslims on Saturday, July 7.

According to Big League Politics, Steve Amundson, the founder of the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC), trained to detect security threats, noticed several alarming clues that led him to believe a terror attack was underway.

The last straw was when an angry Muslim carefully placed his backpack under the CJC’s table outside the Los Cerritos Shopping Center and walked away, later refusing to retrieve it.

Amundson was on the street that day with a pastor colleague, passing out literature about Islam and the threat it poses to America and other Western nations. An unidentified Muslim man wearing a backpack approached the pastor and began furiously arguing with him.

“Before leaving the table, Amundson says he witnessed the Muslim man strategically place his backpack underneath the CJC booth and walk away,” Laura Loomer writes for Big League Politics.

Amundson asked the pastor if he knew the Muslim man. When he said no, Amundson immediately reported the incident to mall security.

Loomer lays out the events and “red flags” leading up to mall security being called:

The events that unfolded next are shocking, and quite disturbing. Amundson told Big League Politics that after he alerted mall security, they approached the man and asked him if the backpack was his. The man said the backpack did belong to him, but he then refused to retrieve his backpack that he had placed underneath the CJC booth before walking away.

After a discussion with security, the Muslim man walked away with security, and security carefully took the backpack.

Over the past six months that Amundson and his colleagues have been tabling, he has experienced an increase in physical attacks against himself and his booth. For this reason, Amundson says he and his colleagues are trained to detect security threats and what they call “red flags”. While passing out literature on Saturday, Amundson says he witnessed and documented several red flags at the Los Cerritos Shopping Center.

The first red flag occurred when two Muslim men inside the mall began snapping pictures of the CJC booth and making phone calls shortly after. Amundson witnessed this and recognized it as “red flag one.”

bigleaguepolitics.com

The second red flag occurred when two Muslim women approached the booth and began cursing at the CJC’s booth operators, calling them liars. Mall security observed the hostile interaction and began speaking to the two women. It was at that moment when the two Muslim women distracted security that a white haired Muslim male walked over to the booth and slid his backpack under that table.

Mall security has thus far declined to confirm if the Muslim man was arrested or if the bomb squad had been called. Thus, it remains unclear if this was a dry run or the real deal.

The report continues:

Amundson’s experience at the shopping center is disturbing and concerning for many reasons, primarily because it appears as though the mall security and Sheriff’s Office are actively working to keep the public and Amundson in the dark about what appears to be a dry run of a jihadi attack. What happened to Amundson at the shopping center is a very serious incident the needs to be further investigated and disclosed to the public to ensure that people are aware of the threat that is clearly present within their own community.

Amundson applied to have another CJC booth at the same mall on July 21, which mall security rejected, citing safety concerns: “While we understand your organization’s right to engage in free speech subject to reasonable time, place and manner rules, we must consider the safety of the Center’s patrons.”

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!

The Duran Newsletter

Trending