Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Latest

Message of SOTU “Women in White” avoided by press

Donald Trump’s history of empowering women for success, both in his own employ and nationally, shows they only had one thing to protest.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The peanut gallery of the House Chamber was in disarray during President Trump’s State of the Union address. The crowd of senators, representatives and their guests featured a bloc of Democrat women senators and congressional members dressed in white, with “ERA” (Equal Rights Amendment) buttons on many of their blouses. The Women in White were widely reported on in the mainstream press, such as Time Magazine, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Fortune, The Washington Post, and for the rest of the mainstream media the narrative was much the same.

That narrative was that the wearing of white was in commemoration of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibited states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to US citizens based on their sex.

As an anniversary celebration, this does make sense since the Amendment was added 100 years ago. But what does not make sense then, is why only Democrat women seem to have done this. The New York Times gushed in its puff piece about how so many women in white gave the women’s message “critical mass”, but became vague when not noting clearly if any of the 13 Republican women in the House wore white, and no reference to any lady Senators and what they wore.

First Lady Melania Trump at the 2019 State of the Union speech.

However, in keeping with tradition, the Times treated former model and now First Lady Melania Trump’s exquisite fashion tastes in a desultory manner:

[The women in white] made for a powerful contrast with the tightly belted quasi-military black skirt suit of Ivanka Trump and the sharply buttoned-up black Burberry trench dress with big silver buttons worn by Melania Trump, the first lady, who also wore black leather gloves, a reported nod to decorum that seemed vaguely sinister. (Not to mention the section in the president’s speech about the danger lurking at the border, with its dire overtones.) Or with the camouflaging beards that both Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, have sprouted.

(It really is difficult to determine if the Gray Lady is interested in reporting news anymore. At least the author managed to hit the Trump family, the Republican conservative agenda and Ted Cruz in three sentences… but we disgress.)

It appears that all the coverage on this matter focused on the Democrat House members, with their present darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez managing to capture some news lines with her stone-faced countenance during the entire speech, even as her colleagues sometimes responded positively to the President’s points.

The right of women to vote is nothing new. It is 100 years old. The ability of women to serve their country in government is also nothing new. It is good that they are there. But why, again, were the women really wearing white?

The closest remark we found in the mainstream reporting was that the women were trying to make a point against the President’s handling of affairs regarding women’s “issues.”

Well, what issues are those?

  1. The right to equal pay for equal work: As a political haymaker, this one is pretty reliable. A wage gap does exist between what women and men make for the same work. However, the reason the gap exists is usually misrepresented as misogyny rather than a part of an overall poor set of labor policies. Maternity leave alone creates a large absence and hence, a drop in pay during that time in America.However, President Trump did address this in a way that was actually bigger and better than just equalizing wages (which may have actually already happened): He proposed an unprecedented (in the US) six weeks of paid leave for both new mothers AND fathers.The US media will spin this for a while without realizing that this sort of thing does exist elsewhere, and that as generous as it seems to Americans, it is still actually much lower than the one to three years leave that is standard across much of Europe for mothers. Americans generally do not know this, and the gradual elimination of even paid vacation time in corporations naturally is an issue causing a break in pay rates at the time of childbirth.The upshot of this issue is that at present it is a political hot-button that has very little real change available to it under present American law, and that law is unconcerned with sex discrimination; it is concerned with labor and capitalism.
  2. The ending of sex-based discrimination between women and men: With regard to types of work, while there may be some residual gallantry among men to restrict women from serving in the battlefields, they do occasionally do so. Past that, the notion that a woman cannot do a job as well as a man is largely passé, though again, there is the sense of protectiveness that men may have to want to prevent women from putting themselves in danger.To the feminist, this is an outrage, but it is a natural instinct that is God-given. The thing that is gone is the notion that women are somehow “less” than men. So this issue is effectively nonexistent as well.
  3. Voting and leadership in government: This is obviously moot. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the Democrat Presidential nominee. She lost because she ran a condescending campaign and because Donald Trump actually had an attractive platform of policy changes.Now, the new rising stars in American politics include three women and one man: Kamala Harris, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Tulsi Gabbard and Howard Schultz. There is no resistance of any kind to the women based on their sex. Their policy positions are looked at squarely by their supporters and detractors for what they are. So again, there is no discrimination.

So with the implied message of the Women in White being “resistance to President Trump”, what are they resisting?

This clip shows exactly what they are resisting.

Watching this clip shows the insanity that grips the Democrat Party’s platform and leadership. The Women in White sat stone faced as President Trump outlined the wish to ban forever late-term abortion.

That willful abortion of a baby at any point in pregnancy is killing, infanticide, and even murder of the innocent, is always true. However, those people who are not inclined to accept this as a truth that is revealed through Christianity and other ancient religious teachings can successfully “hide” from themselves the fact that they are destroying a human being when they do this, as long as the pregnancy is early enough. In America, this has been the usual focus of the debate, since abortion was declared legal in the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case.

But late term abortion, that being in the final three months of pregnancy, when an baby born in this period is more likely than not to be perfectly viable and able to live, to destroy the child at this point it becomes more and more clear that this is murder.

Finally, at the point of labor and birth, and even after birth, as Virginia Governor Northam and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo affirmed, that the baby, a 100 percent real infant and human being, may be killed at the parent’s request, though it be born alive and well, is a true outrage.

All these women in white sat. Silent.

There are not words strong enough to write in response to this. Only perhaps this quote:

A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. (Jeremiah 21:15 KJV)

It is very significant to note that the voice speaking out for life was not first from those to whom God has given the ability to nurture and care like men cannot. Any woman who is a mother knows this, and any father also knows it – how a woman knows the baby’s need just by the sound of its voice, how she knows in a crowd of crying infants exactly which one is hers…

The Women in White were rebelling against their very nature. The distortion of feminism and radical leftism was never seen so clearly as it was this moment.

And the Women in White sat to express their opposition to the call for Life and Love. Their actions revealed them as representatives of nothing less than the culture of Death.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
7 Comments

7
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
B OllyxRegulaTheCelotajsPlaton Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Platon
Guest
Platon

Unnatural,barren harpies and ghoulesses.
Wymyn will save the world?
These women will be the worst thing that has ever happened to it.

B Ollyx
Guest
B Ollyx

I have to call attention to the discrimination against women in the workplace in these areas: there is a construction site near where I live, ongoing for almost two years and in that time I’ve seen only ONE woman in a hard hat holding a pole upright for a (male) surveyer – – why aren’t there female bricklayers, carpenters and other building trades workers? the Soviet Union had female bricklayers, why haven’t we in the West got them?; I have yet to see anywhere, a female rubbish bin collector; I have yet to see, anywhere, a female road sweeper, not… Read more »

TheCelotajs
Guest
TheCelotajs

You will have to ask the local union shop that question since these sites get their workers from the local union halls.

Regula
Guest
Regula

There are women plumbers and women who drive excavators in street and foundation construction sites. Women are accepted anywhere where they can physically do the job. I myself applied for a construction job and was accepted albeit with the warning that even a lot of guys are quitting because of the heavy lifting required. Cement bags weigh 70 to 100 lbs. Window and door frames, beams etc. are both heavy and bulky, not that easy to carry with a woman’s muscles. Bricklaying requires carrying bricks along. Bricks are heavy – around 7 pounds. Any pile of bricks will easily weigh… Read more »

B Ollyx
Guest
B Ollyx

I have never yet seen women on building sites, other than the likes of the one I mentioned, in all my 75 years at home or abroad. Nor have I ever seen female road makers or ancillary trades. Regarding women lifting bags of cement, I did it for a long time when in my twenties. You are advocating that women on building sites shouldn’t lift heavy weights – – this would, of course, be discrimination against male building workers. The Soviet Union used go have female brick layers: if women could do the job there why not here in the… Read more »

Regula
Guest
Regula

While I am entirely in favor of abortion – no woman should be forced to give birth and bring up a child she never wanted – and rape, incest etc. do exist – the way the abortion laws in NY and Virginia were discribed in the media gave even me a shudder of horror. The question is: are these laws further differentiated and limited to situations in which abortion at the last minute is the only option left or in which eustanazing a baby right after birth is the right way to go due to so serious genetic defects that… Read more »

Regula
Guest
Regula

As to the women in white during SOTUS, they really only wanted o make themselves important by sticking out. They are not doing women a favor that way. People are tired of suffragettes if all stripes. But maybe Trump didn’t read the entire laws and used the crude reporting to get abortion restrictions that largely already exist. What Congress should long have done is write a law that keeps abortion legal where that is in the public interest and limit it in such ways that severe conditions can be dealt with in medically and humanly proper ways and with judicial… Read more »

Latest

Airline wars heat up, as industry undergoes massive disruption (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 145.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine the global commercial airline industry, which is undergoing massive changes, as competition creeps in from Russia and China.

Reuters reports that Boeing Co’s legal troubles grew as a new lawsuit accused the company of defrauding shareholders by concealing safety deficiencies in its 737 MAX planes before two fatal crashes led to their worldwide grounding.

The proposed class action filed in Chicago federal court seeks damages for alleged securities fraud violations, after Boeing’s market value tumbled by $34 billion within two weeks of the March 10 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX.

*****

According to the complaint, Boeing “effectively put profitability and growth ahead of airplane safety and honesty” by rushing the 737 MAX to market to compete with Airbus SE, while leaving out “extra” or “optional” features designed to prevent the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air crashes.

It also said Boeing’s statements about its growth prospects and the 737 MAX were undermined by its alleged conflict of interest from retaining broad authority from federal regulators to assess the plane’s safety.

*****

Boeing said on Tuesday that aircraft orders in the first quarter fell to 95 from 180 a year earlier, with no orders for the 737 MAX following the worldwide grounding.

On April 5, it said it planned to cut monthly 737 production to 42 planes from 52, and was making progress on a 737 MAX software update to prevent further accidents.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge…

Step aside (fading) trade war with China: there is a new aggressor – at least according to the US Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer – in town.

In a statement on the USTR’s website published late on Monday, the US fair trade agency announced that under Section 301 of the Trade Act, it was proposing a list of EU products to be covered by additional duties. And as justification for the incremental import taxes, the USTR said that it was in response to EU aircraft subsidies, specifically to Europea’s aerospace giant, Airbus, which “have caused adverse effects to the United States” and which the USTR estimates cause $11 billion in harm to the US each year

One can’t help but notice that the latest shot across the bow in the simmering trade war with Europe comes as i) Trump is reportedly preparing to fold in his trade war with China, punting enforcement to whoever is president in 2025, and ii) comes just as Boeing has found itself scrambling to preserve orders as the world has put its orderbook for Boeing 737 MAX airplanes on hold, which prompted Boeing to cut 737 production by 20% on Friday.

While the first may be purely a coincidence, the second – which is expected to not only slam Boeing’s financials for Q1 and Q2, but may also adversely impact US GDP – had at least some impact on the decision to proceed with these tariffs at this moment.

We now await Europe’s angry response to what is Trump’s latest salvo in what is once again a global trade war. And, paradoxically, we also expect this news to send stocks blasting higher as, taking a page from the US-China trade book, every day algos will price in imminent “US-European trade deal optimism.”

Below the full statement from the USTR (link):

USTR Proposes Products for Tariff Countermeasures in Response to Harm Caused by EU Aircraft Subsidies

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has found repeatedly that European Union (EU) subsidies to Airbus have caused adverse effects to the United States.  Today, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) begins its process under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to identify products of the EU to which additional duties may be applied until the EU removes those subsidies.

USTR is releasing for public comment a preliminary list of EU products to be covered by additional duties.  USTR estimates the harm from the EU subsidies as $11 billion in trade each year.  The amount is subject to an arbitration at the WTO, the result of which is expected to be issued this summer.

“This case has been in litigation for 14 years, and the time has come for action. The Administration is preparing to respond immediately when the WTO issues its finding on the value of U.S. countermeasures,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.  “Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the EU to end all WTO-inconsistent subsidies to large civil aircraft.  When the EU ends these harmful subsidies, the additional U.S. duties imposed in response can be lifted.”

In line with U.S. law, the preliminary list contains a number of products in the civil aviation sector, including Airbus aircraft.  Once the WTO arbitrator issues its report on the value of countermeasures, USTR will announce a final product list covering a level of trade commensurate with the adverse effects determined to exist.

Background

After many years of seeking unsuccessfully to convince the EU and four of its member States (France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom) to cease their subsidization of Airbus, the United States brought a WTO challenge to EU subsidies in 2004. In 2011, the WTO found that the EU provided Airbus $18 billion in subsidized financing from 1968 to 2006.  In particular, the WTO found that European “launch aid” subsidies were instrumental in permitting Airbus to launch every model of its large civil aircraft, causing Boeing to lose sales of more than 300 aircraft and market share throughout the world.

In response, the EU removed two minor subsidies, but left most of them unchanged.  The EU also granted Airbus more than $5 billion in new subsidized “launch aid” financing for the A350 XWB.  The United States requested establishment of a compliance panel in March 2012 to address the EU’s failure to remove its old subsidies, as well as the new subsidies and their adverse effects.  That process came to a close with the issuance of an appellate report in May 2018 finding that EU subsidies to high-value, twin-aisle aircraft have caused serious prejudice to U.S. interests.  The report found that billions of dollars in launch aid to the A350 XWB and A380 cause significant lost sales to Boeing 787 and 747 aircraft, as well as lost market share for Boeing very large aircraft in the EU, Australia, China, Korea, Singapore, and UAE markets.

Based on the appellate report, the United States requested authority to impose countermeasures worth $11.2 billion per year, commensurate with the adverse effects caused by EU subsidies.  The EU challenged that estimate, and a WTO arbitrator is currently evaluating those claims

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

Latest

Mueller report takes ‘Russian meddling’ for granted, offers no actual evidence

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Special counsel Robert Mueller’s ‘Russiagate’ report has cleared Donald Trump of ‘collusion’ charges but maintains that Russia meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. Yet concrete evidence of that is nowhere to be seen.

The report by Mueller and his team, made public on Thursday by the US Department of Justice, exonerates not just Trump but all Americans of any “collusion” with Russia, “obliterating” the Russiagate conspiracy theory, as journalist Glenn Greenwald put it.

However, it asserts that Russian “interference” in the election did happen, and says it consisted of a campaign on social media as well as Russian military intelligence (repeatedly referred to by its old, Soviet-era name, GRU) “hacking” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the DNC, and the private email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta.

As evidence of this, the report basically offers nothing but Mueller’s indictment of “GRU agents,” delivered on the eve of the Helsinki Summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in what was surely a cosmic coincidence.

Indictments are not evidence, however, but allegations. Any time it looks like the report might be bringing up proof, it ends up being redacted, ostensibly to protect sources and methods, and out of concern it might cause “harm to an ongoing matter.”

‘Active measures’ on social media

Mueller’s report leads with the claim that the Internet Research Agency (IRA) ran an “active measures” campaign of social media influence. Citing Facebook and Twitter estimates, the report says this consisted of 470 Facebook accounts that made 80,000 posts that may have been seen by up to 126 million people, between January 2015 and August 2017 (almost a year after the election), and 3,814 Twitter accounts that “may have been” in contact with about 1.4 million people.

Those numbers may seem substantial but, as investigative journalist Gareth Porter pointed out in November 2018, they should be regarded against the background of 33 trillion Facebook posts made during the same period.

According to Mueller, the IRA mind-controlled the American electorate by spending “approximately $100,000” on Facebook ads, hiring someone to walk around New York City “dressed up as Santa Claus with a Trump mask,” and getting Trump campaign affiliates to promote “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by the IRA.” Dozens!

Meanwhile, the key evidence against IRA’s alleged boss Evgeny Prigozhin is that he “appeared together in public photographs” with Putin.

Alleged hacking & release

The report claims that the GRU hacked their way into 29 DCCC computers and another 30 DNC computers, and downloaded data using software called “X-Tunnel.” It is unclear how Mueller’s investigators claim to know this, as the report makes no mention of them or FBI actually examining DNC or DCCC computers. Presumably they took the word of CrowdStrike, the Democrats’ private contractor, for it.

However obtained, the documents were published first through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 – which the report claims are “fictitious online personas” created by the GRU – and later through WikiLeaks. What is Mueller’s proof that these two entities were “GRU” cutouts? In a word, this:

That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.(p. 43)

However, the report acknowledges that the “first known contact” between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks was on September 15, 2016 – months after the DNC and DCCC documents were published! Here we do get actual evidence: direct messages on Twitter obtained by investigators. Behold, these “spies” are so good, they don’t even talk – and when they do, they use unsecured channels.

Mueller notably claims “it is clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to WikiLeaks” (the rest of that sentence is redacted), but the report clearly implies the investigators do not actually know how. On page 47, the report says Mueller “cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.”

Strangely, the report accuses WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange of making “public statements apparently designed to obscure the source” of the materials (p.48), notably the offer of a reward for finding the murderer of DNC staffer Seth Rich – even though this can be read as corroborating the intermediaries theory, and Assange never actually said Rich was his source.

The rest of Mueller’s report goes on to discuss the Trump campaign’s contacts with anyone even remotely Russian and to create torturous constructions that the president had “obstructed” justice by basically defending himself from charges of being a Russian agent – neither of which resulted in any indictments, however. But the central premise that the 22-month investigation, breathless media coverage, and the 448-page report are based on – that Russia somehow meddled in the 2016 election – remains unproven.

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

Latest

Rumors of War: Washington Is Looking for a Fight

The bill stands up for NATO and prevents the President from pulling the US out of the Alliance without a Senate vote.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


It is depressing to observe how the United States of America has become the evil empire. Having served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War and in the Central Intelligence Agency for the second half of the Cold War, I had an insider’s viewpoint of how an essentially pragmatic national security policy was being transformed bit by bit into a bipartisan doctrine that featured as a sine qua non global dominance for Washington. Unfortunately, when the Soviet Union collapsed the opportunity to end once and for all the bipolar nuclear confrontation that threatened global annihilation was squandered as President Bill Clinton chose instead to humiliate and use NATO to contain an already demoralized and effectively leaderless Russia.

American Exceptionalism became the battle cry for an increasingly clueless federal government as well as for a media-deluded public. When 9/11 arrived, the country was ready to lash out at the rest of the world. President George W. Bush growled that “There’s a new sheriff in town and you are either with us or against us.” Afghanistan followed, then Iraq, and, in a spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats came up with Libya and the first serious engagement in Syria. In its current manifestation, one finds a United States that threatens Iran on a nearly weekly basis and tears up arms control agreements with Russia while also maintaining deployments of US forces in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and places like Mali. Scattered across the globe are 800 American military bases while Washington’s principal enemies du jour Russia and China have, respectively, only one and none.

Never before in my lifetime has the United States been so belligerent, and that in spite of the fact that there is no single enemy or combination of enemies that actually threaten either the geographical United States or a vital interest. Venezuela is being threatened with invasion primarily because it is in the western hemisphere and therefore subject to Washington’s claimed proconsular authority. Last Wednesday Vice President Mike Pence told the United Nations Security Council that the White House will remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, preferably using diplomacy and sanctions, but “all options are on the table.” Pence warned that Russia and other friends of Maduro need to leave now or face the consequences.

The development of the United States as a hostile and somewhat unpredictable force has not gone unnoticed. Russia has accepted that war is coming no matter what it does in dealing with Trump and is upgrading its forces. By some estimates, its army is better equipped and more combat ready than is that of the United States, which spends nearly ten times as much on “defense.”

Iran is also upgrading its defensive capabilities, which are formidable. Now that Washington has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement with Iran, has placed a series of increasingly punitive sanctions on the country, and, most recently, has declared a part of the Iranian military to be a “foreign terrorist organization” and therefore subject to attack by US forces at any time, it is clear that war will be the next step. In three weeks, the United States will seek to enforce a global ban on any purchases of Iranian oil. A number of countries, including US nominal ally Turkey, have said they will ignore the ban and it will be interesting to see what the US Navy intends to do to enforce it. Or what Iran will do to break the blockade.

But even given all of the horrific decisions being made in the White House, there is one organization that is far crazier and possibly even more dangerous. That is the United States Congress, which is, not surprisingly, a legislative body that is viewed positively by only 18 per cent of the American people.

A current bill originally entitled the “Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act (DASKA) of 2019,” is numbered S-1189. It has been introduced in the Senate which will “…require the Secretary of State to determine whether the Russian Federation should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and whether Russian-sponsored armed entities in Ukraine should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations.” The bill is sponsored by Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado and is co-sponsored by Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

The current version of the bill was introduced on April 11th and it is by no means clear what kind of support it might actually have, but the fact that it actually has surfaced at all should be disturbing to anyone who believes it is in the world’s best interest to avoid direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia.

In a a press release by Gardner, who has long been pushing to have Russia listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, a February version of the bill is described as “…comprehensive legislation [that] seeks to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to Russia’s interference in democratic processes abroad, malign influence in Syria, and aggression against Ukraine, including in the Kerch Strait. The legislation establishes a comprehensive policy response to better position the US government to address Kremlin aggression by creating new policy offices on cyber defenses and sanctions coordination. The bill stands up for NATO and prevents the President from pulling the US out of the Alliance without a Senate vote. It also increases sanctions pressure on Moscow for its interference in democratic processes abroad and continued aggression against Ukraine.”

The February version of the bill included Menendez, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as co-sponsors, suggesting that provoking war is truly bipartisan in today’s Washington.

Each Senator co-sponsor contributed a personal comment to the press release. Gardner observed that “Putin’s Russia is an outlaw regime that is hell-bent on undermining international law and destroying the US-led liberal global order.” Menendez noted that “President Trump’s willful paralysis in the face of Kremlin aggression has reached a boiling point in Congress” while Graham added that “Our goal is to change the status quo and impose meaningful sanctions and measures against Putin’s Russia. He should cease and desist meddling in the US electoral process, halt cyberattacks on American infrastructure, remove Russia from Ukraine, and stop efforts to create chaos in Syria.” Cardin contributed “Congress continues to take the lead in defending US national security against continuing Russian aggression against democratic institutions at home and abroad” and Shaheen observed that “This legislation builds on previous efforts in Congress to hold Russia accountable for its bellicose behavior against the United States and its determination to destabilize our global world order.”

The Senatorial commentary is, of course, greatly exaggerated and sometimes completely false regarding what is going on in the world, but it is revealing of how ignorant American legislators can be and often are. The Senators also ignore the fact that the designation of presumed Kremlin surrogate forces as “foreign terrorist organizations” is equivalent to a declaration of war against them by the US military, while hypocritically calling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism is bad enough, as it is demonstrably untrue. But the real damage comes from the existence of the bill itself. It will solidify support for hardliners on both sides, guaranteeing that there will be no rapprochement between Washington and Moscow for the foreseeable future, a development that is bad for everyone involved. Whether it can be characterized as an unintended consequence of unwise decision making or perhaps something more sinister involving a deeply corrupted congress and administration remains to be determined.

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

Videos

Trending