Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Venezuela, Afghanistan and North Korea: 3 conflicts which represent the US vs. China and Russia

In spite of the rapidity or protracted nature of US decline, Russia and China, in speaking in a single voice, have lead to the US being isolated in the elite club of the three superpowers.

Published

on

3,929 Views

While some pundits continue to downplay the increasingly strong partnership between Russia and China, the reality is that as Russia’s economy continues to grow and as China’s geo-political pronouncements continue to become more wide reaching, the world is witnessing the final stage of a new geo-political alignment that has been many years in the making.

China and Russia are now, not only on the same side of many global issues but they are speaking in a singular voice with a similarly loud volume.

Three areas where this has manifested itself include of Venezuela, Afghanistan and North Korea. In each of these cases, both Russia and China are saying almost identical things at the same time and are doing so forcefully.

By contrast, during the early stages of the Syrian conflict which started in 2011, while China was always supportive of the Syrian government in its battle against terrorists, Russia took a lead in the conflict both in respect of diplomatic announcements and after 2015, in respect of military assistance to the Syrian government.

China’s quiet support for Syria has been replaced by vocal support for Venezuela, Pakistan in respect of the Afghan war and in respect of clearly articulating the Sino-Russian peace plan for the Korean peninsula.

Here are the key statements:

1. Venezuela 

On the 17th of August, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov delivered a statement in which he said war in Venezuela is viewed as unacceptable by Russia.

“We are united in the need to overcome the existing disagreements in the country by peaceful means through a nationwide dialogue as soon as possible, without any external pressure, not to mention the unacceptability of the threats of military intervention in the internal affairs of this count”.

Shortly thereafter, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Hua Chunying said,

“The present problem in Venezuela should be resolved by the Venezuelan government and people themselves.

The experience of history shows that outside interference or unilateral sanctions will make the situation even more complicated and will not help resolve the actual problem”.

This was followed by a statement the following day from Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova who similarly stated,

“We are strongly against unilateral sanctions against sovereign states. The recently announced measures of financial pressure on Venezuela and President Maduro were introduced by Washington when that country started showing signs of relative domestic stabilisation following elections to the National Constituent Assembly….

In these circumstances, the announced sectoral sanctions against Venezuela’s financial and oil sectors are clearly aimed at further unbalancing the situation in the country, and exacerbating its economic problems. They embolden the irreconcilables who do not see how they can realise their political potential without removing the Venezuelan leaders from office”.

A SUMMARY OF SINO-RUSSIAN POLICIES: 

In respect of Venezuela, Russia and China are both utterly opposed to military action against Venezuela, both oppose unilateral US sanctions and both continue to trade with Venezuela as well as support the reforms of President Maduro.

There is clear blue water between the mutual Sino-Russian position on Caracas vis-a-vis the position of the United States which has implement sanctions, has threatened war and has tried to de-legitimise President Maduro’s government as a “dictatorship”.

 

READ MORE: Russia is fully opposed to sanctions against Venezuela

2. Pakistan/Afghanistan 

On the 22nd of August, when Donald Trump accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists and not doing enough to fight terrorism and instability on its border with Afghanistan, China and Russia offered robust defences of Islamabad’s record in these areas.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry came out first with a strong rejection of Donald Trump’s assessment of its Pakistani ally,

“Pakistan is at the forefront of the counter-terrorism efforts. For many years, it has made positive efforts and great sacrifices for combating terrorism and made important contributions to upholding world peace and regional stability. We believe that the international community should fully recognise the efforts made by Pakistan in fighting terrorism”.

China further stated,

“The Chinese side is actively committed to promoting the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. We always maintain that political dialogue is the only way out for resolving the Afghanistan issue. The international community should support the ‘Afghan-led’ and ‘Afghan-owned’ reconciliation process, support Afghanistan in realising the widespread and inclusive political reconciliation, support the Afghan people in exploring a development path suiting their own national conditions and support the Afghan government in enhancing counter-terrorism capability and combating extreme terrorist forces. We need to attach importance to the important role of Pakistan in the Afghanistan issue and respect the sovereignty and legitimate security concerns of Pakistan. The Chinese side is willing to maintain communication and coordination with the United States on the Afghanistan issue and make concerted efforts for achieving the peace and stability of Afghanistan and the region at large”.

Shortly thereafter Russia’s envoy to Kabul said,

“Putting pressure [on Pakistan] may seriously destabilise the region-wide security situation and result in negative consequences for Afghanistan”.

Sergey Lavrov furthered stated that Donald Trump’s approach to Afghanistan was effectively useless. Lavrov said,

“The main emphasis in the new strategy, which was announced by Washington, is made on settlement through use of force. We believe that it’s a dead-end approach”.

A SUMMARY OF SINO-RUSSIAN POLICIES: 

In respect of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Russia and China are both opposed to any further attempts by the US to escalate the war. Both countries call for a peace process that involves fostering dialogue between the government in Kabul and that moderate rebel elements of the Pashtun dominated Taliban.

Russia and China equally call for Pakistan’s role in the conflict to be respected and for Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns to be addressed without equivocation.

While China has been more detailed in its opposition to India playing a role in the conflict which would disrupt important cooperative efforts between China and Pakistan, namely the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Russia’s silence on the India issue combined with its vocal support of Pakistan against Trump’s accusations, make it clear that even in respect of Russia’s old Cold War ally in New Delhi, Moscow does not think it is proper for India to intervene in a conflict on Pakistan’s western borders.

China, Pakistan and Russia are therefore reading from essentially the same page in South Asia in spite of historic differences in the region.

3. North Korea 

On the 26th of May, shortly before the far less important G20 summit in Hamburg, Chinese and Russian leaders met in the Russian capital along with leaders of business and media enterprises from both countries. Scores of bilateral deals were signed, thus cementing the importance of the Sino-Russian partnership for the 21st century.

It was during these meetings that the Foreign Ministers of each country, Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi developed a jointly agreed peace plan for North Korea, a plan which both countries continue to pursue.

At the time, Sergey Lavrov said the following,

“We noted that attempts to use Pyongyang’s actions as a pretext to boost military presence in the region, including the deployment of another part of the US’ global anti-missile defence (THAAD), are counterproductive

We are for adopting measures that, on the one hand, would hamper the further development of the North Korean nuclear missile programs, but at the same time would not lead to an increase in tensions in the region, would not block the possibility of a political and diplomatic settlement of the Korean Peninsula’s nuclear problem”.

Wang Yi then stated,

“We insist on ensuring peace and stability on the (Korean) peninsula, (oppose) any negative actions and statements that contribute to tension, oppose the deployment of the THAAD system in the Republic of Korea under the pretext of the DPRK nuclear problem.

Military actions can only escalate the crisis and bring serious consequences. No matter it was in the past, or in the future, it should not be an option for any country. China and Russia have reached consensus on this issue”.

READ MORE: Foreign Ministers of Russia and China agree on North Korea and Syria (VIDEO)

This was the birth of the so-called ‘Double-freeze’ policy for the Korean peninsula which China and Russia have both restated on the record at the United Nations Security Council multiple times, including when both countries supported increased sanctions on Pyongyang.

However, while Russia and China continue to discourage further missile tests from the DPRK, both countries stood resolutely opposed to further unilateral sanctions imposed by the US on North Korea. These sanctions also targeted foreign businesses conducting commerce with North Korea.

READ MORE: China joins Russia in condemning new US sanctions over North Korea

A SUMMARY OF SINO-RUSSIAN POLICIES: 

China and Russia remain committed to their ‘Double-freeze’ which calls for North Korea ceasing to conduct missile tests while calling on South Korea, the US and Japan to cease their own missile launches and military drills in the region. Additionally, Russia and China continue to jointly call for direct talks between Pyongyang and Washington while reiterating that the UN Security Council is the only proper forum to discuss the matter.

Both countries are totally opposed to war anywhere on the Korean peninsula.

READ MORE: Russia and China can and should work together to bring peace to Korea

CONCLUSION: 

The aggregate effect of these news developments means that China has finally come out of what many perceived (however simplistically) to be Russia’s geo-political shadow while Russia continues to pursue global economic projects around the world, marking a sharp contrast to the 1990s and early 2000s when the Russian economy was reduced to chaos and collapse.

With the Syrian conflict about to end and Russia and China both being vindicated by being on the winning side, it will be unlikely that there will be any future global conflict where a joint Sino-Russian voice will not be heard in a manner that is loud and clear. The NATO powers will have no choice to but to listen to the Sino-Russian opinions on future conflicts as China and Russia are both stronger than ever and more united than ever.

With Russia and China standing together on major global issues, the US will not be able to act with the unilateral ease it exercised during its wars on Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011).

Additionally, while Russia continues to expand positive relations with its Cold War adversary Pakistan, India and Vietnam appear to be stuck in a Cold War mentality (albeit with pre-Cold War antecedents) whereby both countries trust Russia but not China. With China and Russia speaking increasingly as one, Vietnam and India both face a decision which will in time amount to choosing both Russia and China or choosing neither.

Luckily for both Hanoi and New Delhi, because of Russia’s relaxed and fluid approach to alliances and because of Moscow’s policy which does not prohibit good bilateral relations with multiple countries, including those engaged in local disputes with one another, India and Vietnam have the ability to move gradually in one direction or the other.

The choice will ultimately be left to both India and Vietnam as neither Russia nor China seeks to impose a partnership on either. In the end this will mean that a pragmatic approach to economic realities will guide both India and Vietnam towards thawing relations with China, that is unless ideology trumps economic considerations, something which is the reality in Modi’s India but may not be the reality in the hearts and minds of future Indian leaders.

The unity between two of the three world’s superpowers means that while the decline of the US will not be as rapid as some expect, American isolation among the elite club of superpowers is already a fact of life, whether Washington acknowledges this or not.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
More
Guest
More

There is too much hype and toffee (over blown nonsense) throughout this Op Ed, so had a good laugh, LoL:))) Russia is a midget in terms of Global Trade or Power Projection apart from Putin’s whinging and Lavrov talking to deaf ears and would not qualify as a Super Power and neither does China which is only interested in Soft Power related to Global Trade and Infrastructure Projects. Thus the best word bite from this Op Ed is: “…American isolation among the elite club of superpowers is already a fact of life…” Of course the US is an isolated Super… Read more »

GeorgeG
Guest
GeorgeG

To return the compliment Mr. “More,” your remarks earn a 10-star LoL from my side. Admittedly, however, Mr. Garrie has drawn the geopolitical map using diplomatic statements and I believe that is not sufficient. There are many other factors, including in-depth economic relations between the aligned powers. But the main thing missing is Syria, for the following reason, which is addressed to your invoking Super Power sttus for the US of A. As you undoubtedly know — and this is official language — US Super Power status, the accompanying claim to exceptionalism and indispensability, means “we can hit and attack… Read more »

Wayne Blow
Guest
Wayne Blow

GeorgeG very well done my friend, I much enjoyed reading your logical summation!!!

More
Guest
More

GeorgeG In the Wild West, it used to be “Gun for Hire”, nowadays journalists like Adam Garrie are a “Pen for Hire”. Just keeping to Syria and leaving out NK as this reply may become too cumbersome. Trump just like the US is controlled by the Neoconservatives, they do not care what the UN says or does, they do what they want in stages. Both Syria and Iran are long term Geopolitical threats to Israel as well as Russia for different reasons, Putin will help to keep them destabilized and assist in their economic and infrastructure destruction in accordance with… Read more »

GeorgeG
Guest
GeorgeG

Mr. Moore, As you say, being cumbesome is a danger. So, for the sake of debate, I’ll merely contribute three assertions (for now, not “points,” because it would be cumbersome to argue them): 1. For some people, the praxis of intelligence work really does reduce to “connecting the dots.” If the resulting lines seem to sketch the contours of some real, living creature, the analyst will have the creature against which to check and verify the accuracy of the sketch. The analyst will be as happy intellectually if the verification-attempt does not pan out as he would be if it… Read more »

More
Guest
More

GeorgeG There is no bias, the dots fit because the opposing sides are getting some of their “needs”, goals met. The success of the Khazar nation has to be accepted, denying it would be like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. Regarding points 1 – 4 partly fit both the US – Israel goals as well as Putin – Russia’s goals. This is how: Putin – Russia and Netanyahu – Israel consider themselves to be “Best Friends” and “Partners” in all spheres including Business and Military. Putin is interested in preventing the Geopolitical threat of Oil and Gas… Read more »

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

With proper counseling, and the support of your friends, and loved ones you should be able to live with your delusions. Also, never doubt the positive power of prayer combined with the effects of mind altering drugs.

More
Guest
More

XRGRSF
You looked at yourself in the mirror and wrote what you saw, LoL:)))

Freethinking Влади́мир
Guest
Freethinking Влади́мир

Disappointing that China agreed with continuous sanctions against North Korea. They play their own game.

SVESAMSHVATIO
Guest
SVESAMSHVATIO

Russia is a miserable, corrupt country that has GDP at the level of one Belgium, but it is very dangerous. China is the product of Wall Street globalists and their greed. Unique opportunity to settle where they belong together with that pig and its banana state – the largest concentration camp in the world of 25 million people. It’s a good thing Trump is NOT Obama that local dictators from Russia to NK or Venezuela can do whatever they want.

Christinamellis
Guest
Christinamellis

Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!!!
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
>>>http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash320TopValue/GetPay$97/Hour……..

Latest

‘Meme-killing’ EU regulation could end YouTube as we know it, CEO warns

The proposed amendments to the EU Copyright Directive would require the automatic removal of any user-created content suspected of violating intellectual property law.

The Duran

Published

on

Via RT


YouTube’s CEO has urged creators on the popular video site to organize against a proposed EU internet regulation, reinforcing fears that the infamous Article 13 could lead to content-killing, meme-maiming restrictions on the web.

The proposed amendments to the EU Copyright Directive would require the automatic removal of any user-created content suspected of violating intellectual property law – with platforms being liable for any alleged copyright infringement. If enacted, the legislation would threaten “both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki warned the site’s content creators in a blog post on Monday.

The regulation would endanger “hundreds of thousands of job,” Wojcicki said, predicting that it would likely force platforms such as YouTube to allow only content from a hand-picked group of companies.

“It would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content,” Wojcicki wrote.

While acknowledging that it was important to properly compensate all rights holders, the YouTube chief lamented that the “unintended consequences of Article 13 will put this ecosystem at risk.”

She encouraged YouTubers to use the #SaveYourInternet hashtag to tell the world how the proposed legislation would impact them personally.

“RIP YOUTUBE..IT WAS FUN,” read one rather fatalistic reply to the post. Another comment worried that Article 13 would do “immense damage … particularly to smaller creators.”

The proposal has stirred considerable controversy in Europe and abroad, with critics claiming that the legislation would essentially ban any kind of creative content, ranging from memes to parody videos, that would normally fall under fair use.

Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, has opposed Article 13 for months. The measure was advanced in June by the European Parliament. A final vote on the proposed regulation is expected to take place sometime next year.

World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have also spoken out against Article 13.

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

Latest

WSJ Op-Ed Cracks The Code: Why Liberal Intellectuals Hate Trump

WSJ: The Real Reason They Hate Trump

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


As pundits continue to scratch their heads over the disruptive phenomenon known as Donald Trump, Yale computer science professor and chief scientist at Dittach, David Gelernter, has penned a refreshingly straightforward and blunt Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining why Trump has been so successful at winning hearts and minds, and why the left – especially those snarky ivory-tower intellectuals, hate him.

Gelernter argues that Trump – despite being a filthy rich “parody of the average American,” is is a regular guy who has successfully resonated with America’s underpinnings.

Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American,” writes Gelernter. “We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.”

He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton. –WSJ

Gelernter then suggests: “This all leads to an important question—one that will be dismissed indignantly today, but not by historians in the long run: Is it possible to hate Donald Trump but not the average American?“.

***

The Real Reason They Hate Trump via the Wall Street Journal.

He’s the average American in exaggerated form—blunt, simple, willing to fight, mistrustful of intellectuals.

Every big U.S. election is interesting, but the coming midterms are fascinating for a reason most commentators forget to mention: The Democrats have no issues. The economy is booming and America’s international position is strong. In foreign affairs, the U.S. has remembered in the nick of time what Machiavelli advised princes five centuries ago: Don’t seek to be loved, seek to be feared.

The contrast with the Obama years must be painful for any honest leftist. For future generations, the Kavanaugh fight will stand as a marker of the Democratic Party’s intellectual bankruptcy, the flashing red light on the dashboard that says “Empty.” The left is beaten.

This has happened before, in the 1980s and ’90s and early 2000s, but then the financial crisis arrived to save liberalism from certain destruction. Today leftists pray that Robert Mueller will put on his Superman outfit and save them again.

For now, though, the left’s only issue is “We hate Trump.” This is an instructive hatred, because what the left hates about Donald Trump is precisely what it hates about America. The implications are important, and painful.

Not that every leftist hates America. But the leftists I know do hate Mr. Trump’s vulgarity, his unwillingness to walk away from a fight, his bluntness, his certainty that America is exceptional, his mistrust of intellectuals, his love of simple ideas that work, and his refusal to believe that men and women are interchangeable. Worst of all, he has no ideology except getting the job done. His goals are to do the task before him, not be pushed around, and otherwise to enjoy life. In short, he is a typical American—except exaggerated, because he has no constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.

Mr. Trump lacks constraints because he is filthy rich and always has been and, unlike other rich men, he revels in wealth and feels no need to apologize—ever. He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton.

But my job as a voter is to choose the candidate who will do best for America. I am sorry about the coarseness of the unconstrained average American that Mr. Trump conveys. That coarseness is unpresidential and makes us look bad to other nations. On the other hand, many of his opponents worry too much about what other people think. I would love the esteem of France, Germany and Japan. But I don’t find myself losing sleep over it.

The difference between citizens who hate Mr. Trump and those who can live with him—whether they love or merely tolerate him—comes down to their views of the typical American: the farmer, factory hand, auto mechanic, machinist, teamster, shop owner, clerk, software engineer, infantryman, truck driver, housewife. The leftist intellectuals I know say they dislike such people insofar as they tend to be conservative Republicans.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know their real sins. They know how appalling such people are, with their stupid guns and loathsome churches. They have no money or permanent grievances to make them interesting and no Twitter followers to speak of. They skip Davos every year and watch Fox News. Not even the very best has the dazzling brilliance of a Chuck Schumer, not to mention a Michelle Obama. In truth they are dumb as sheep.

Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American. We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.

Many left-wing intellectuals are counting on technology to do away with the jobs that sustain all those old-fashioned truck-driver-type people, but they are laughably wide of the mark. It is impossible to transport food and clothing, or hug your wife or girl or child, or sit silently with your best friend, over the internet. Perhaps that’s obvious, but to be an intellectual means nothing is obvious. Mr. Trump is no genius, but if you have mastered the obvious and add common sense, you are nine-tenths of the way home. (Scholarship is fine, but the typical modern intellectual cheapens his learning with politics, and is proud to vary his teaching with broken-down left-wing junk.)

This all leads to an important question—one that will be dismissed indignantly today, but not by historians in the long run: Is it possible to hate Donald Trump but not the average American?

True, Mr. Trump is the unconstrained average citizen. Obviously you can hate some of his major characteristics—the infantile lack of self-control in his Twitter babble, his hitting back like a spiteful child bully—without hating the average American, who has no such tendencies. (Mr. Trump is improving in these two categories.) You might dislike the whole package. I wouldn’t choose him as a friend, nor would he choose me. But what I see on the left is often plain, unconditional hatred of which the hater—God forgive him—is proud. It’s discouraging, even disgusting. And it does mean, I believe, that the Trump-hater truly does hate the average American—male or female, black or white. Often he hates America, too.

Granted, Mr. Trump is a parody of the average American, not the thing itself. To turn away is fair. But to hate him from your heart is revealing. Many Americans were ashamed when Ronald Reagan was elected. A movie actor? But the new direction he chose for America was a big success on balance, and Reagan turned into a great president. Evidently this country was intended to be run by amateurs after all—by plain citizens, not only lawyers and bureaucrats.

Those who voted for Mr. Trump, and will vote for his candidates this November, worry about the nation, not its image. The president deserves our respect because Americans deserve it—not such fancy-pants extras as network commentators, socialist high-school teachers and eminent professors, but the basic human stuff that has made America great, and is making us greater all the time.

Mr. Gelernter is computer science professor at Yale and chief scientist at Dittach LLC. His most recent book is “Tides of Mind.”

Appeared in the October 22, 2018, print edition.

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

Latest

The Trump Miracle and the Logical End of US Democracy: What Happened?

Published

on

I don’t wish to dine with a Clinton Snowflake.

And a Clinton Snowflake would rather see me off to San Quentin, the Deplorable that I am.

Something happened under Obama-Clinton rule that has never happened before, not even in the heat of passions culminating in the Civil War. The country polarized, splitting into two groupings. Forever.

Obama’s, Grand Canyon divide was cemented, subsequently, by Clinton’s “Deplorables” gaff interpreted as disdain and disrespect for the working, one-half of the country. Millions of Americans will never accept her and her Snowflakes and vice versa. “Never say never,” it’s said, often enough. But, this time, “never,” is an unequivocal: “Never!”

Quite simply, the Obama-Clinton regime politicized that which should never be politicized, namely, core beliefs and values, starting with God.

Debate is one thing, but the regime followed up with direct and indirect actions, which some writers call rainbow fascism. “You won’t bake a wedding cake for two gays out of some fossilized belief in scripture? We’ll shut you down.”

The regime’s aggression against the Church, the family, and the infant in the womb is dynamite inserted into the foundation on which the country stands.

Along with compassion and sensitivity to opposing views, compromise used to help mend political wounds. It allowed the nation to move on after an election. However, when religious tenets are challenged by a political Party with executive order power, the door on possible compromise slams shut. Obama-Clinton politicized the sacred and the Holy, a big no-no considering that politics divide. It wasn’t done out of ignorance, disrespect, or plain arrogance. It was a conscience, systematic attack by the Godless against God-fearing Christians.

God either exists or He doesn’t – no compromise, here. That is, “He might exist,” placates neither the believer nor the atheist. The Bible is either the Word of God as delivered through His prophets or it isn’t. No compromise possible.

Abortion-on-demand is another issue without compromise considering the commandment: Thou shalt not kill (murder). There is also common sense compassion, which makes us human and says that abortion is wrong. You’re either for murder of the defenseless or against it.

A partial birth abortion, despite the insinuation of compromise in the term, is actually a viler variant of infanticide because it’s performed in the last trimester, at 5-7 months. The well-developed, living infant is pulled out of the womb, legs first. The medical executioner then plunges a probe with a catheter into the living brain in order to suction out a bloody slurry and collapse the skull. Is it murder of the defenseless or a “woman’s right” as Snowflakes call it?

Clinton claims: “Fetuses feel no pain and have no rights.” Curiously, Himmler leaned on a nearly identical contention to justify ghoulish, medical experiments on pregnant women in Konzentrationslager. Is there a difference? Indeed, there is. Clinton is a woman, making her serial murders more of a monstrosity.

The Holy Bible is either the Word of God or it isn’t. It’s not a book to be adapted to one’s whims or sexual lusts. Scripture strictly condemns male homosexuality in at least three passages and, implicitly, in some one-half dozen others. Nonetheless, Obama-Clinton attached the promotion of LBGTq-ism to the Democratic plank, overriding scripture. Clinton informed one audience that Christians would have to change their beliefs on some issues.

Hold on! “I’m getting my musket,” as more than one American has said.

I used to enjoy dialogue. But a sour aftertaste remains from the last time that I waded, innocently enough, into an after-dinner, back-and-forth. The topic was the upcoming primaries.

Dodging a flurry of leftism hooks from a New York Cityite at a Hamptons hideaway, I smiled through early-round attacks recalling how Mohammed Ali used to taunt opponents and cockroaches until they lost their cool. It worked. My opponent promptly tangled himself up in the ropes of his emotions.

It became apparent, in the ensuing minutes, that the Achilles heel of the Left was the absence of a viable candidate. That is, one who could be liked – a leader with charisma with a realistic chance winning.

Hillary was the only figure looming big on the horizon. After flying about on her crooked broom, peddling influence and laundering bloody cash from terrorism-sponsoring sheiks, wads of cash stuffed her Pampers. The Wicked Witch of the West, as victims of her foreign policy still address her, apparently, had it all. Except likeability. Or, something new to offer millions of working Americans beyond the scandals, a world in flames, and the same old corrupt things, starting with her foundation, which kept the cash but forgot Hattian children.

Deep-down inside, my opponent knew that getting excited about Hillary would be a daunting task. It’s precisely Hillary’s inability to generate enthusiasm that eventually metamorphosed into, “What Happened?” It wasn’t Russia; it wasn’t the dog that ate her homework.

As Secretary of State, Clinton’s role in creating and sponsoring head-choppers, baby burners, and heart-eating fanatics in ISIS’s jumpsuits was already well-established for anyone who was interested in looking beyond the hyaluronic acid smile and the praise of her attendant, media handlers.

Propagandists led by CNN and MSNBC did their best to sequester her “Arab Spring” fiascos. Her ties and support of the Muslim Brotherhood, apparently, inspired by live-in aide and right-hand woman, Huma Abedin were off limits for the press. Lesbian lover or not, the real issue is the between-the sheets confidences of one woman, holding one of the highest positions in the US Government and another with connections to jihadist circles inspired by Sayyid Qutb, the godfather of al Qaeda. What would have been made of it by the press if Trump had a mistress whose grandfather was Osama bin Laden?

Clinton’s connivance, her intrigue, and her use of the sword to overthrow foreign governments constituted the essence of her foreign policy. Now, the rich, sweet thing is crying over supposed, Russian interference that she claims cost her the election! No proof of Russian involvement has been found, despite massive efforts and the wasteful expenditure of millions of dollars. Even so, in her warped sense of reality, it’s inconceivable that American voters chose a vulgar, thrice-married, casino operator who trash talks instead of her. Curiously, it was Christians, in particular – Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox – fearing a de facto Obama third term, who voted in droves for Trump.

Jonathon Van Maren writes: “…Christians are having conversations around the dinner table about what do if the government forces curricula on them that they cannot accept, because their own government is increasingly indicating that Christian parents are too homophobic and too hateful to teach their own children.”

Fear is setting in at both ends of the political spectrum. Meltdown, weep-in snowflakes fear Trump yet he and Christians are not forcing the LGBTq groupings etc., to make lifestyle changes. In contrast, Obama-Clinton’s Rainbow Fascism demands core value changes, or else! It’s already ruining the lives of those who cannot compromise religious tenets. What’s next? Obviously, children must be taken away from homophobic and irresponsible parents. It’s already happening in Norway and Sweden.

Curiously, WaPo’s entire editorial board endorsed her. Isn’t endorsement of Clinton’s terrorism by proxy tantamount to being a terrorist? Can WaPo be trusted, again? Another liberally slanted paper, the NY Times largely swept Clinton’s sordid past under the carpet, with about 90 percent of its articles casting her in a positive light. In contrast, it was open season on Republicans and, soon enough, on Trump.

“Considering her international war crimes record, if you vote for her, as I’m sure you’ll end up doing, you’re going to be an accomplice. Of terrorism,” I sighed. “So unfriend me now, please.”

Swinging, aimlessly – now, a bug in my web – my opponent’s accusations turned Archie-Bunker-personal – “You’re a SOB, M#*/!er. All you do is criticize but you haven’t done squat! Do something in the community instead of blaming everything on Obama and Clinton.

“Some time ago, I saw little, practical sense in it,” I replied. “That is, in wasting time to change the system.”

If it was ever possible to improve matters on a local level, those days are gone. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle did not consider the rule of money to be compatible with democracy. After three, consecutive, two-term geniuses steering the US Titanic – Clinton, Bush, Obama – the scraping sounds of hitting the iceberg are all-too-audible. The mass media orchestra plays on yet the waterline has reached the nation’s gunwales.

“Sorry, trends are apparent enough. Liberty, freedom of expression – all on the wane. Government as well as media controls are tightening! Prisons are full. Stalin has been outdone. His maximum Gulag stay was 15 years regardless of the charge. What’s ours? A life sentence for being in a romantic relationship with a drug smuggler? Common sense is being pushed aside by nonsense. Sorry, I find little sense building sandcastles at ebbtide.”

My opponent had had enough. Spilling whisky to get away from me, he spewed more venom and parted the room. Forever.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

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