Connect with us
// (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});


Observations on the Covington High School incident, Part I

There are many story threads about the Covington incident. Part I of this series focuses on how out of control the public reaction became.

Seraphim Hanisch



The weekend of January 18-20 was a watershed moment in American history. In only about 24-30 hours, we watched two stories unfold that were treated with an insane level of angst by the news media: The “leak” that Donald Trump told fixer and attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about something, and the Covington High School students’ altercation with “minority” groups that went viral in social media.

Both stories caught fire in the news media, and both were rather quickly proven to be false. There has been a great deal of reporting on this matter so we will not dive into that too much again here.

However, the ferocity displayed by Americans’ reactions, mostly through social media, to the Covington incident was frightening. This is not alarmist language at all to say this. Look at the text in these posts. We have removed the foul language and replaced it with *s:

“I am thinking of finding every one of this ****** kids and giving them a very large piece of my mind.” – Kara Swisher, Op-Ed writer for The New York Times

“Nobody is born racist. Bigotry is learned from parents, teachers, society and leaders. So yes, I sure as hell think Trump’s racist comments and constant dog whistles have contributed to Making A**wipes Great Again. It is why we must condemn racism everywhere and every time we see it.” – CNN Personality Ana Navarro, apparently the token Republican on that network

Actor Ron Perlman, Golden Globe winner for his work in Beauty and the Beast, referred to Covington student Nick Sandmann as a “little (female dog)”, but after the story was revealed to be false, he did not delete his initial tweet saying this but then sent out another one saying “What we need of less in this country are the deep divisions that rip apart our emotions.”

Viewed critically, this is hardly an apology; it appears to be more a rather polite way of saying that those who are different are the problem rather than our emotions.

A Los Angeles DJ named Michael Buchanan, tweeting under the name “Uncle Shoes” had this creative idea:


Twitter at first did not remove this message, saying Buchanan had not violated Twitter’s rules.

Reza Aslan, religious studies scholar, producer and guest on numerous television shows, responded,

“Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?”

Comedian (if anyone thinks she is actually funny anymore) Kathy Griffin (yes the one who held an effigy of President Trump’s decapitated head) wrote,

“Covington’s finest throwing up the new nazi sign,”

not realizing that the sign was actually the standard celebration of a successful three-point shot in basketball, which was the game that was in progress when the photo was taken.

Although there are many far more vile and profanity laced tweets and comments throughout social media that happened, this one was among the most dangerous.

GQ writer Nathaniel Friedman wrote this:

Although this was swiftly responded to by many people who still had their sanity, this writer’s anger continued to be on display for quite some time. Later Mr. Friedman acknowledged that he was wrong but still blamed Trump supporters in a claim that appears unbelievable, as Trump supporters have never been proven to show anything remotely as bizarre in their behavior as the claim here:

It was an irresponsible and stupid tweet that happened in the heat of the moment because I was upset. It partly came from having been doxxed by MAGA people myself but that’s no excuse and no one should wish that on anybody else. It’s counterproductive to say anything along those lines and if you make yourself look like an irrational, mean idiot you’re playing right into their hands.

The results of this sort of action were evident in very short order. The parents of the Covington students found themselves receiving death threats from strangers. “Doxxing”, the practice of finding out how to orchestrate a hit on someone by using all available information from the targeted person’s social media pages, is as stated before, potentially deadly.

Such doxxing nearly resulted in the death of one young man whose name we will not publicize for fear of an attack against him happening again. This young man, a Christian who is simply rather outspoken about his beliefs, but not hostile to anyone for any reason, was doxxed in a Colorado city by members of Black Lives Matter that was operating in that area. These people identified the youth in a bar during a concert, attacked him and nearly killed him.

He had to fight so hard that he told us that he also almost killed one of the BLM attackers, though he was fighting in self-defense. He suffered broken bones and was in very bad shape, and so far there is no word that the BLM perpetrators have yet been found.

To have a prominent writer call for doxxing against a group of kids whose images were billboarded across the entire nation, when echoed sentiments by so many Americans is the same… this is a very grave threat. Some people reacted to this tweet and pointed out that Mr. Friedman was perpetrating a felony, but he defended his anger for quite a while.

It must be noted that almost everyone mentioned above is relatively to highly prominent in the United States. Kathy Griffin was a well known comedienne. Nathaniel Friedman writes for a popular men’s magazine. Reza Aslan is a common sight on many television programs and networks.

The phenomenon of great rage and anger was not confined to media celebrities; it was manifest by ‘regular Americans’ as well.

Colorado teacher Michelle Grissom, of Mountain Ridge Middle School in Douglas County, went on record saying ““His name is Jay Jackson,” according to Twitter screenshots shared in the Douglas County School District Watch Facebook page.

“His twitter account is closed to non followers so we won’t interfere with his training #HitlerYouth.”

She got placed on leave over this, and may lose her job over it. While this seems justified in light of what she did, it is also reflective of the very tragic pattern that more and more Americans have succumbed to.

Even the Bishop of the Diocese in Kentucky that the oversees Covington High School condemned the students, at least initially.

The circumstances surrounding this are bizarre. Consider that the Roman Catholic Church has long been held to be one of those organizations that stands objectively to the world… or at least it is supposed to be. But Bishop Roger Foys told a different, and shocking story:

In a letter to Covington Catholic parents, Foys wrote the diocese felt harangued into reacting as quickly as possible to a viral clip of the incident — and then, when additional clips filmed from other perspectives began to circulate, to issuing a just-as-quick retraction of its earlier condemnation.

“We should not have allowed ourselves to be bullied and pressured into making a statement prematurely, and we take full responsibility for it,” he wrote. “I especially apologize to Nicholas Sandmann and his family as well as to all CovCath families who have felt abandoned during this ordeal. Nicholas unfortunately has become the face of these allegations based on video clips.

“This is not fair. It is not just.”

The bishop is correct in assessing his and the Diocese’ actions, but it was after the fact.

Even the methodical reputation of the Roman Catholic Church seems to have been replaced by a hair-trigger tendency to wild and unrestrained emotional outbursts.

This tendency is on the increase across the nation, parallel to what appears to be an increasing lack of objectivity, of sanity.

Of all social media services, Twitter is one of the places that seems to most often attract cesspool-level comments, because the format is perfect for the incendiary, snarky, or outraged statement (the “tweet”).

This does not make Twitter inherently evil; that network can be used for effective purposes. President Trump is a master of Twitter and has successfully used it to keep in touch with his voter base because most media outlets like to try to just show what they want people to see, which is often very different than what Mr. Trump actually does.

But when Twitter, Facebook or YouTube or any other social media network is used by people who think it is okay to use this stuff to vent their anger “into the ether”, it appears that it is causing problems. It appears that the more anger shows, the more anger results – a chain reaction of outrage that, last weekend, extended to a pitch never seen before.

It placed the lives of students, faculty and parents of a Roman Catholic boy’s high school at risk.

We need to let this sink in. How many school shootings have resulted in massive deaths from far less provocation? Thank God, this was so blatant that the school could at least see the threat and close in advance to give the situation a chance to defuse, especially since the story had been proven false.

The hope was that the correction would result in two things: vindication of the falsely accused students, and an honest bit of self-assessment on the part of the media (and hopefully all of us by extension) to look at how dangerous this mob reaction almost became.

However, after only a day or so of some people apologizing for what they said in hyper-reaction to the video clips of the students, many prominent sources reversed their course again, and continued to blame President Trump, conservatives, Christians, MAGA hats and other things, and the outrage is now ramping up again.

And, as the news cycle moved on Friday into its pattern of attempting a major hit against President Trump just in time for the weekend, the outrage flared anew about other issues.

It does not appear that much has been learned. However, here, in Part I of this report, we have gone so far as to note one fact – that emotions on rampage seems to have become the norm in America, at least so far as social media is concerned.

Part II of this series will examine the patterns of media reporting and their contribution to this phenomenon.

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

Leave a Reply

2 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
john vieiraRegula Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Ironically, whenever the crowds go off on tangents of outrage against one imperfection or another, the ultimate blame is pushed on Trump. But who really brought about the divisiveness? Not Trumo. The Democrats do with their complete unwillingness to accept the outcome of a democratic election. For two years they have produced nothing but spite and hatred of Trump. Surely, had they acted in support of Trump where his policies are reasonable, opposition to policies that are not reasonable would have carried importance. As it is, the discussion of any actions by Trump result in nothing but racism against Trump.… Read more »

john vieira

What you are witnessing is the angst of the bottom feeding mainstream corrupt fake media. They have tried everything in their cesspool of an arsenal to “defrock” Trump and apparently there is no “bottom” limit to the despicable loathsome depths they are prepared to descend in their endeavours….


Unfortunately, racism has become the new omnibus card of the Dems. But it only hides a party that has nothing to offer people.


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

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 145.

Alex Christoforou



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.


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


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





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


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.




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


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...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter