Connect with us

Politics

HI’s Michael Nevradakis discusses Greece’s economic “recovery” & EU political crisis on Fault Lines Radio

The realities of Greece’s “exit from the crisis” and the EU’s attitudes towards Southern Europe were covered in today’s interview.

Published

on

0 Views

Michael Nevradakis, Hellenic Insider’s “head insider,” was interviewed today on Radio Sputnik’s “Fault Lines” program, which airs on Radio Sputnik US, broadcasting on 105.5 FM and 1390 AM in the Washington DC area.

In this 20-minute interview, Nevradakis largely focused on Greece’s so-called economic “recovery” and the decades of austerity which the current SYRIZA-led government has committed to, drawing parallels with the recent political crisis in Italy. He discussed examples with the democratic will of voters in Europe was overturned, as well as first-hand experiences with EU technocrats and their attitudes towards Southern Europe. The Macedonia dispute was also on the agenda, but due to a lack of time, the discussion will be saved for a new, forthcoming broadcast.

Listen to the full interview here:

“Fault Lines” is hosted by Garland Nixon and Lee Stranahan. More information is available here: https://sputniknews.com/radio_fault_lines/.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Honest liberal says he is NOT INTERESTED in policy explanation [Video]

When news anchors try to act like prosecuting attorneys instead of actually interviewing people, we all lose.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One characteristic of modern-day television “news reporting” is that the political news is not truly reported. Rather, if the interviewer disagrees with the one being interviewed, the session turns into interviewer grandstanding. Regrettably, this tactic is used by liberal and conservative journalists alike. However, it is usually not admitted, as the interviewer usually chooses to say things like “I want the truth” when he or she really wants to force the other person to admit the correctness of the interviewer.

Over the weekend, Fox News’ Chris Wallace grandstanded against White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller. However, Chris Wallace at least was honest about his wish:

STEPHEN MILLER: … At a fundamental level, we could go down into the details, and you know, Chris, I can go down into details as much as you want to, but the bottom line is this…

CHRIS WALLACE: Please don’t! (laughs)

This is a big problem. The responsibility of any good journalist is to get full and accurate information about a given topic. Isn’t it?

Not in the press of our day. Chris Wallace is a valued personality for the Fox News Channel. As a former CBS anchor for 60 Minutes, Wallace brings a well-known face and voice of the mainstream media to Fox, even though he is quite liberal politically, as are many in the entertainment and information professions.

The problem is that the topic here, the facts justifying President Trump’s National Emergency declaration on Friday over the still permeable US-Mexico border, are present in abundance. But Mr. Wallace did not want to know these facts, or perhaps worse, he did not want to let his viewing audience know this information, so he tried to prevent Mr. Miller from talking about those details.

Stephen Miller, thankfully, was not having it. He insisted on giving a full and informed response to Mr. Wallace’s questions, even though Wallace did not want to hear any information.

The rest of the interview is comprised of Mr. Miller trying to dissemimate information and Mr. Wallace trying to block it and refuse it in order to sustain his own preferred narrative.

Chris Wallace’ point of view is that the President called a National Emergency for no good reason, and that President Trump is breaking the law by appropriating money for the Border Wall, something which only the House of Representatives can do, legislatively.

However, the point of view expressed by Mr. Wallace and President Trump is that as Chief Executive of the United States of America, the President is responsible to preserve the country from invasion. For the President, the never-ending waves of illegals coming into the country and not being deported, but rather, released into the US pending trials that they often never attend years later, amounts to a slow invasion.

Strictly speaking, President Trump is correct. The illegals are not (usually) armed representatives of a foreign power, but neither do they become American citizens. Many of them take advantage of generous provisions and loopholes in the law (Mexico teaches them how to do this!) and they therefore earn money but usurp the country of resources.

It has been exceedingly difficult to move the level of interest in stopping illegal immigration in the US. Rush Limbaugh rightly stated in his program on Friday, February 15, what the problem is, and we include some of the details (as we should) for why Mr. Limbaugh says what he says here:

There is a limit on a number of detainees. There is limit on how much of border and fence can be built. There’s a limit on what kind can be built. There’s a limit on modernization. This bill is filled with congressional edicts telling the president of the United States what he cannot do. Now, it authorizes $23 billion for Homeland Security, but it specifies $1.375 billion for fencing and bordering.

But there are so many limits on this as to make this practically irrelevant — by design and on purpose, because I firmly believe that what members of Congress (both parties) actually want with this bill is to send a message that nothing is ever gonna happen as long as Donald Trump is President. The attempt in this budget deal is to send a message to you Trump voters that it’s worthless voting for him, that it is a waste of time supporting him, because they are demonstrating that he can’t get anything done.

This is Pelosi in the House and Schumer in the Senate getting together, because they know when it comes to illegal immigration, these parties are unified, folks. For the most part, the Republicans and Democrats are for open borders. There are exceptions on the Republican side. But there are a lot of Republicans that don’t want Trump to succeed even now. There are a lot of Republicans just after he was inaugurated who don’t want him to succeed. So they come up with a piece of legislation here that is outrageous.

It is outrageous in its denial of the existence of a genuine emergency at the border. They don’t care. They will deal with whatever mess they create. They don’t care how bad it gets because in their world, the only mess is Donald Trump — and since the Russian effort and the Mueller effort and everything else related to that has failed to get his approval numbers down (and that has been the objective from the get-go), this is the latest effort, and it won’t be long… You mark my words on this.

There is an emergency at the US-Mexico border. Last year almost half a million people were apprehended by the Border Patrol and ICE. Many, if not most, though, are still in the United States. They were not all sent back. Some were, and some of them probably have come back in yet again. The fact that our nation’s borders are unrestricted in this manner is absolute folly.

The more American people know the details about what is actually happening at the border, the more they support the wall’s construction and President Trump’s policies. We have seen evidence for this in polling even by liberal network outlets. President Trump managed to call attention to this topic and bring it into the center of the discussion of US domestic policy. Rasmussen reported that the level of approval of Trump’s work to close the border is high – at 59 percent, with only 33 percent disapproving.

The President made this an issue. Chris Wallace tried in his own program to deflect and dissuade information from being brought to the attention of the American viewers who watch his program.

This is not journalism. It is reinforcement of propaganda on Mr. Wallace’s part, defense against facts, and an unwillingness to let the American people have information and therefore to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, such practices are not limited to Mr. Wallace. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and others all utilize this form of questioning, and it is a shame, because the news reporter no longer reports the news. When a talking head on TV or radio places himself or herself as the Gatekeeper to allow or prevent information from reaching the American people, this is highly presumptuous, ego driven and almost always, dishonest.

Worse, such an approach reinforces this message to American people: “You cannot think for yourself. It is too hard, so we will do your thinking for you. Trust us!”

This style of journalism became more and more popular over, under the “appearance” of “tough questioning.” However the usual course of “tough questioning” is ideologically aligned with whatever the journalist thinks, and not at all about what is actually important. Chris Wallace is notorious for doing this with conservatives, and he does aggravate them, but he reduces interviews to an argument between the journalist and the person interviewed.

And usually, this is not the story. This was made absolutely clear in the interview with Stephen Miller, even to the point that Mr. Wallace actually voiced the request, “please don’t (give us all the specifics of this issue.)” 

Good journalism respects the fact that different people have different points of view. Agreement or disagreement with these points is what Op-Ed writing is for. But when Op-Ed is treated as hard fact journalism, we all lose.

We included the whole interview video from the beginning here so that the viewer can take in the whole course of this discussion. It is well worth watching. And as it is well-worth watching, it is also well-worth each person’s own personal consideration. People are smarter than the media would like us to be.

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

Latest

Pelosi attempted a coup? Some very peculiar signs point to this

Conspiracy theories are usually bunk; this one may be, too. However, the Pelosi story offers a remarkable amount of compelling information.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Conspiracy theories often abound about many different topics. The seven people that run the world. The Illuminati. UFO’s. Secret government antigravity and other “black projects.” President Trump as the secret agent of Vladimir Putin. Chemtrails. DARPA. All these and many others form the basis for many interesting theories and stories, even movies that are considered “documentaries.” But few such tales have aroused as much apparently serious attention as the new one concerning Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

It is an easily visible fact that she does not agree with the policy ideas of President Trump. It is also easily evident that she thinks she can overrule the President’s wishes to break the decades-long silent conspiracy over open borders with Mexico, and to build a substantial barrier along that border.

It could also be easily inferred from both vocal and body language that she does not personally like Mr. Trump either, and at the very least considers his presence in the White House as an anomaly, as something that went wrong in “the plan.”

But what about the idea of her arranging an assassination attempt against the President?

This is the focus of a new conspiracy theory that has gained some partial reporting even in mainstream news media outlets. The most popular video presently on YouTube about this has well over 568,000 views (gained in nine days) at the time of this writing. The narrator makes a wise comment as a possible disclaimer:

For several days, the following theory has been making its way around the internet. I found it difficult to completely dismiss, when I first came across it. It’s been in the back of my mind ever since. A comprehensive time-line was made available yesterday. The evidence provided with the time-line, although circumstantial, renders it impossible for me to continue ignoring what I am about to share with you.

Here is how the conspiracy goes, in brief:

  • January 3: Mrs. Pelosi invites President Trump to deliver the State of the Union, setting the date at January 29, 2019
  • January 16: Mrs. Pelosi asks the President to postpone the address, or deliver it in writing. This was taken as a sign that the Democrats were afraid of being called out for the presently occurring partial government shutdown.
  • However, she also asserted that there was a security risk for the Capitol because the Secret Service and the Dept of Homeland Security were both not getting paid for their services during the shutdown. She said this without actually checking if it were true with these agencies.
  • January 16, 11:25am – Kirsten Nielssen, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security soon affirmed that both agencies were fully ready to support the needs of the SOTU
  • January 16: 21-year old Hasher Taheb was arrested on the charge of planning an attack against the White House on January 17th, using among other things an AT-4, an anti-tank weapon. This story got next to zero media attention, further the Atlanta Journal-Constitution downplays the abilities of this young man to carry out his plan, despite significant efforts he made.
  • January 17th: Nancy Pelosi adjusts her “delay” stance on the SOTU to say it should not be given because the workers in the departments are not getting paid. (All of Congress is getting paid, Democrats vacationed in Puerto Rico, Pelosi went to Hawaii, and President Trump stayed at the White House over the Christmas break, except when he left to visit the troops.)

This is where it gets really hairy, though.

  • Nancy Pelosi planned a trip during the shutdown to Brussels, Egypt and Afghanistan, together with her entire family, a group of seven other Congressional delegates, and according to the Marshall Report and other rampant reports, 93 other people, family members of both Mrs. Pelosi and the other delegates, a claim that has no corroboration anywhere else we can find at this time. This trip was scheduled for January 17th, the same day that Hasher was planning to attack the White House.
  • However even the idea of Representative Pelosi going to Afghanistan is a surprise. An early report on the Rush Limbaugh program noted that she has never gone there in the history of the entire US involvement, so why now?
  • Further, the trip was set to visit NATO leaders in Europe.
  • President Trump canceled her trip, but then quietly sent his own wife, Melania and young son Barron, to Florida by government transport.
  • The letter canceling the trip was released at 2pm on January 17th. Mrs. Pelosi and Co. were scheduled to depart D.C. at 3pm that day (January 17th)
  • Further, Mrs. Pelosi tried to hand-pick the crew for the trip. This was denied as well but it adds to the mystery. Was it really because of their “great service?”
  • The plan for the trip was initiated around Christmas. In Afghanistan, government staffers were not thrilled about the upcoming trip. Foreign Service officers were working for two weeks without pay.
  • Nancy Pelosi made a public reply that the stop in Brussels was to meet with NATO leaders to assure them of the ironclad nature of the US alignment with them. However on December 3rd, Mike Pompeo met with NATO heads as well. What would Pelosi possibly have to say?
  • While Pelosi denied she was traveling to Egypt, the itinerary of the flight said otherwise. Incidentally, again, Mike Pompeo had just been to Egypt 10 days prior.
  • January 18: Pelosi tries again to fly commercial to these same places, but has to cancel the trip, and accuses the White House of “leaking her commercial flight plans.” What commercial flights go to Afghanistan with US government officials?
  • January 18: President Trump announces that he plans to make a major announcement Saturday to be broadcast live from the White House.
  • The strangest incident yet: From Donna Brazile, this tweet:

Archived copy of this not yet located…

  • This seems to be very strange. We are looking for an archived copy of this tweet, but have not yet located it.

Is this code for an assassination attempt? MLK was, and “hope” is part of the mantra for Barack Obama during his own campaign.

  • January 18: Pelosi and Co. spotted at Reagan Airport
  • Last in our list (though the attached video describes still more), when the Air Force bus carrying the delegation was brought back from the airport on the 17th, it reportedly circled several times before stopping and letting everyone out. This raises its own set of questions, namely “why?”

And this last is even weirder: Snopes.com is widely understood to be a leftist “fact checker” site, but often some of the conspiracy theory debunking it does is pretty accurate. They checked into the allegation that 93 family members were to go on this trip (to Afghanistan!) and could not prove it one way or the other. In fact, this is what they said:

We requested comment from all seven Congressional members of the cancelled delegation: House Speaker Pelosi and U.S. Reps. Adam Schiff, Susan Davis, Eliot Engel, Elaine Luria, Stephen Lynch and Mark Takano. We did not receive a response from any of them.

This seems to be very telling. If there was no story, it probably would have taken all of about ten seconds to say so.

More information is offered in these video clips:

and

The conspiracy theory is that an attempt to bolster Deep State alliances was attempted. The timing of the alleged attacker, the possibility of several high-ranking US Congressional members, plus the Speaker of the House to be out of the US at the time of the attack, is spooky. Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is third in line of succession. If the President and Vice President were killed or seriously incapacitated, she would become President.

So, is this a hokey conspiracy theory, just dreamed up by Trump supporters who are aggravated by Mrs. Pelosi’s stubbornness?

Let us hope so. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer together have successfully managed to hold the US government still and more importantly, they have been somewhat effective in at least delaying the President from getting the border wall built.

Remember that this wall’s completion will absolutely cut illegal border traffic. While that border traffic has been dropping since 2000’s high point of 1.6 million apprehended, 2018 still had some 470,000 illegals caught by the Border Patrol and ICE, which is the size of a large American city. On Wednesday, a huge drug seizure was accomplished at the US-Mexico border, with a haul of Fentanyl so large that it could have killed some 57 million people.

Closing the border with the wall will probably not stop all illegals. But it will stop the vast majority of them, and it may make the problem of illegal border crossings manageable while a better solution is found. But this will also aggravate interests in both political parties, for this is why the border has never been closed. Many people profit from cheap labor.

However, Mr. Trump is not a politician. He is a populist leader, and as we have already seen, he means to keep his word to his supporters, and it definitely appears that he does not care a fig for sweeping this matter under the carpet.

We know the media hates the President, and spends much of its time in a mindless rage over his existence.

The real question is, probably, therefore, this:

How many assassination attempts have been tried against President Trump? The second video says 12. Why do we not know about them?

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

Latest

Serbia unequivocally says “no!” to gas from the West

Serbia and Eastern Europe have been pressed by the United States to buy LNG from them, when Russian gas is local and far less costly.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the most absurd efforts the United States has engaged in involves a whole lot of gas. Literally. The US wants its allies in Eastern Europe to buy LNG from them, and has even helped build off-loading facilities to accept US LNG tankers coming across the Atlantic. Serbia is one of the countries targeted by the US as a potential customer of its gas.

There is only one problem. Russia has an enormous natural gas supply, and it borders all of Eastern Europe. But for the US, that is not a problem; the problem is… RUSSIA!!!

This is truly an hysterical peak of US foreign policy. Russia has long been known as a reliable supplier of natural gas to countries all throughout Europe, not just former Warsaw Pact countries but even Germany, Greece and Italy.

An upcoming English translation of this program from Russian Channel 1 shows the history of this struggle. However, for anyone who understands Russian, that program is available here. To get English, turn on Auto Translate and choose English, and you will get a pretty good approximation of the Russian language.

This program’s topic was manifested in reality on 30 December, with the announcement from the President of Serbia that they are not interested in buying Western gas at all:

Serbia does not plan to give up Russian gas for more expensive liquefied gas to please the West, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic told Studio B TV channel on Saturday.

“I will not pay double for liquefied gas to please someone in the West. I will buy cheap gas so that people can live and industry can develop. [This is] not my money, [this is the] people’s money, state money,” Vucic said.

The topic of gas will dominate the agenda of the upcoming visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Belgrade on January 17. “The main thing for us is to reach an agreement with Russians. We want that, and we will do it,” the Serbian leader noted.

He also said that at the upcoming meeting, the sides will discuss the situation in Kosovo, as well as touch upon the situation in Ukraine and Syria.

Serbian media reported earlier that during Putin visit to Belgrade, the sides plan to sign 20 agreements. The two presidents are expected to discuss the implementation of joint projects in energy, infrastructure and innovation technologies. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov said that the sides may also sign an agreement on the construction of a nuclear center in Serbia.

As can be seen in the video program, the tug-of-war between Russia and the United States is done here through the issue of energy. But politics cannot pay the bills, and the vastly cheaper price and enhanced reliability of Russian gas sources make it so that the only reason not to buy from Russia is politics. The Serbian president decided not to play that game.

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