Connect with us

Latest

News

America

US delegation to Russia met with lies from Democrats

Reaction to GOP delegation split along party lines and Russophobes as GOP delegation’s trip to Russia concludes

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

2,010 Views

As reported on the Duran, an American Congressional delegation comprised of seven Republican US Senators and Congressmen traveled to Russia from June 30 to July 5th. During this time the delegation met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak.

The two sides expressed hope for a thawing of relations between the US and Russia, which have been in a very poor state since 2014.

As the delegation heads home, the Washington Post reported that their activity was met with derision by Democrat Party members and “Kremlin watchers”, whose statements were anything but positive… and anything but true.

The Post reports:

Republican lawmakers who went to Russia seeking a thaw in relations received an icy reception from Democrats and Kremlin watchers for spending the Fourth of July in a country that interfered in the U.S. presidential election and continues to deny it.

“Cannot believe GOP, once the party that stood strong against Soviets & only a decade ago sought to democratize the Middle East, is now surrendering so foolishly to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Kremlin’s kleptocracy — only two years after Russia interfered in U.S. election,” tweeted Clint Watts, an information warfare specialist at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and frequent featured expert before congressional panels examining Russian influence operations.

“Russians wooing with a shopworn song — repugnant as nails on a blackboard,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a Twitter post in response to the delegation’s trip. “They are enemies and adversaries, attacking us.”

Of course, this rhetoric is the continuing narrative of RussiaGate, which has becoming increasingly evident as merely the tactic deployed by Democrats who were enraged that their candidate failed to win the 2016 election. Further, the Democrat criticizers tried to use the Republicans’ historic strength as their foundation for accusation, while conveniently avoiding their own historic alignment with the Communists of the Soviet times. This is historically known and often commented upon, as here by Rush Limbaugh in this piece dated 21 February 2017:

Accuracy in Media (AIM) raised concerns about the influence of Russian propaganda on the U.S. political process more than four years ago, when Russia Today (RT) television was trying to disrupt the Republican presidential primary. Going further back into history, the Moscow-funded Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was openly advocating the defeat of Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

A good place to start this inquiry is a quarter-page ad that appeared in The New York Times on August 19, 1984, entitled, “The Bottom Line: NO to Reaganism.” It was an anti-Reagan diatribe under the byline of the then-CPUSA vice presidential candidate, longtime pro-Russian communist Angela Davis. She said, “…if Reagan is not defeated in November we may well be on the way to war—and even a nuclear holocaust.”

Though running on the CPUSA ticket, she praised the Democrats for nominating Geraldine Ferraro as the first female vice-presidential candidate of a major party, and said that Jesse Jackson’s campaign for president had moved the Democrats “in a more progressive direction.”

This is the same Angela Davis who appeared as a co-chair and spoke at the anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington on January 21 [2017].

The CPUSA ad in The New York Times was an obvious signal that the Kremlin didn’t want Reagan re-elected as U.S. president. But The New York Times took the money for the ad and moved on, rather than use the ad as an opportunity to expose Moscow’s involvement in the anti-Reagan campaign.

Despite this opposition, Reagan won a stunning re-election victory, carrying 49 of the 50 states over the Democratic candidate, former Vice President Walter Mondale.

Earlier that year, the CPUSA paper, the Daily World, had run a banner headline, “Fight to Sharpen Dems’ Platform,” on how progressives were working to improve the “peace” and “rights” planks of the Democratic national platform. By August, the Daily World was highlighting how unity at the Democratic Party convention had shifted the odds toward a defeat of Reagan in November. The story quoted Gus Hall, general secretary and presidential candidate of the CPUSA, as saying that “it is necessary to pay special attention to the issues and forms that will unite and bring together the supporters of Mondale and the supporters of Jackson.”

Earlier, Davis had given an interview to the CPUSA paper, denouncing “the ideological myth of the Soviet menace” and the anti-communist policies of President Reagan. She described the CPUSA as “a part of the united people’s front that will be able to defeat the Reagan Administration.”

By September of 1984 the Russians were openly expressing their sympathies, marked by Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko meeting with Walter Mondale. The meeting was designed to highlight a Soviet propaganda theme that Reagan was responsible for a breakdown in arms-control negotiations.

The Advanced International Studies Institute, associated with the University of Miami, analyzed Soviet propaganda themes, demonstrating that the Soviets were “calculating how to most effectively damage President Reagan’s reelection efforts.”

In July 1984, the Heritage Foundation released a detailed analysis of how Soviet propagandists were aiming at Reagan’s ouster. A study by Manfred R. Hamm declared, “Moscow’s disinformation campaign has been aimed at convincing American, European, and world opinion that U.S. military and political policies are the root cause of international conflict and instability.”

Reagan was opposed because the Soviets/Russians perceived him to be an ideological conservative committed to restoring America’s economic and military strength. At the time, the Democrats and the Russians backed the so-called “nuclear freeze campaign” to undercut Reagan’s military build-up.

By any objective measure, Trump’s campaign proposals to rebuild America’s economic and military strength are more of a threat to Moscow than anything Democratic President Hillary Clinton had proposed. Yet it’s Trump who stands accused in the media and by the Democrats of being an agent of Russian influence.

Indeed, Republican Senator Richard Burr (NC), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has joined with Democratic Senator Mark Warner (VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in announcing an “inquiry into Russian intelligence activities” regarding U.S. elections.

For Mr. Limbaugh, even today often the word “Russian” and the world “Soviet” are considered one and the same thing. However, even so it is easy to see that the Soviet leadership of the day is what Mr. Limbaugh is calling out. Also, despite the radio talk show host’s views about modern-day Russia, he still considers the notion of RussiaGate as “preposterous.”

Rush Limbaugh says he doesn’t buy the notion that Russia influenced the election of President Donald Trump.

It is preposterous to believe the Russians had any influence on the election, the conservative radio talk-show host said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Limbaugh argued that Trump’s groundswell of support came directly from voters who feared for the country if Democrat Hillary Clinton were elected.

“People that voted for Donald Trump really believed they would lose the country if Hillary won,” Limbaugh said.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
7 Comments

7
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Vince DhimosJohn VuAM HantsStephan Williamseuclides de oliveira pino neto Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Vince Dhimos
Guest
Vince Dhimos

Russia interfered in US elections? That is chutzpa for ya. For anyone who forgot the 90s in Russia: http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news–analysis/us-meddled-to-get-yeltsin-elected-and-is-still-at-meddling-in-russian-elections

John Vu
Guest
John Vu

Didn’t you know the Capitol is the den of Satan and those “Capitollers” have more tongues than the devil himself?

AM Hants
Guest
AM Hants

They so need to grow up. Not a good vote catcher, obsessed with one person, plus story, with the mid-terms coming up.

Stephan Williams
Guest
Stephan Williams

From the article:

“In July 1984, the Heritage Foundation released a detailed analysis of how Soviet propagandists were aiming at Reagan’s ouster. A study by Manfred R. Hamm declared, “Moscow’s disinformation campaign has been aimed at convincing American, European, and world opinion that U.S. military and political policies are the root cause of international conflict and instability.” “

OhmyGawd!

It appears that as far back as July 1984 the Soviets were cognoscente of who was “the root cause of international conflict and instability.”

“Telling the truth is the best propaganda”. So claimed Joseph Goebbels, the master of propaganda.

euclides de oliveira pino neto
Guest
euclides de oliveira pino neto

USA sempre foi o empecilho para a paz mundial… sua intenção de criar um Governo Mundial é conhecida desde o século 19… promoveu a I e II Guerra Mundial, financiou a Revolução Bolchevique e a Guerra Japão-Russia de 1905… projeto dos sionistas khazarian sempre foi destruir a Russia e tomar conta das reservas de petróleo e gás…

AM Hants
Guest
AM Hants

This article over on Fort Russ, focuses on those in Ukraine that were involved in ‘Russia Gate’, now trying to spin their involvement in The Maidan. Expecting to be involved in the ‘Helsinki Summit’. Yulia ‘Gas Princess’ Tymoshenko – her Presidential tag line was ‘nuke the Russians’. She also loiters outside cloakrooms, at US religious summits, waiting for US Presidents to finish washing their hands, before she pounces. Heavily involved in working with Soros, and a major player in both ‘Orange Revolutions’, so she has now meant to have switched from Democrats to Republicans, rather than owned by the Pro-Israel… Read more »

Ole C G Olesen
Guest
Ole C G Olesen

In MY opinion the Article describes a totally unreported development .. the JEWISH LOSS OF POWER in the SOVJET UNION ..as THE DECISIVE POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT in the Late 19th Century . When that fact somewhat belated was realized in the Western Left Libtard & 5th Column Community .. they changed from being Sovjet ( Russia ) PROMOTERS into being Russia BASHERS so well documented for ex in the Case of Angela Davis . This change was preceded and accompanied with a MASSIVE FLIGHT of JEWS from the SOVJET UNION and EAST EUROPE , escaping their HORRENDOUS CRIMES against the Russian… Read more »

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

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

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

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

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

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