Connect with us

Latest

Red Pill

Analysis

What might the Clinton plan be for getting rid of Trump?

Published

on

1,539 Views

Clinton is not the snore that she appears to be.

She’s a radical, an adept of the Hegelian doctrine of the state knowing what’s best for the individual and for the family. The notion that, “Father knows best,” is a relic. Stone Age vintage.  While Hegel’s disciples may have extended his philosophy to opposite hemispheres – to the Protestant Right and to the Marxist Left – little in Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, or in her subsequent, expressed views, suggests anything but a militant Marxist perspective.

Brandishing hellfire assuredness, which some believe only the Devil can instill, she is still quite certain, despite advancing years, that with enough patience the radicalization of cultural and educational institutions will bring about the needed transformation of America prior to the advent of HER New World Order. The new dawn will see her ruling above all and everything.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

When her husband ran the show, Hillary was actively working to transform the US into a collectivist state through organizations like the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). “Operate in stealth from within,” remains a favorite axiom.

There’s only one problem with Hillary’s core identity.

Radicalism doesn’t win presidential elections. Every pundit will tell you: “Winning demands middle-of-the-road stature with just the right dash of populism.” In fact, it was the image that Bill Clinton successfully portrayed to dupe the electorate in 1992. Through their co-reign over America, Hillary zealously began injecting the radical left agenda (RLA) into diverse organizations as Bill pushed hard for globalism.

Hence, the dilemma for Hillary. She’s a radical but not the actor needed to play the middle-of-the-road game. Her heart – physicians claim she has one – wasn’t into it. At least not with a sufficient pulse or pressure to motivate even paid “volunteers.” Unlike the used car salesman at her side disguised as US President, she wasn’t enough of a hypocrite. She doesn’t have Obama’s talent at pushing hot air to get snake-oil sales. The more she presses, the more the fake laugh doesn’t fly.

Indeed, starting with the Billy-Hillary regime, the ideology of the RLA has been infiltrating the ideological vacuum in the Democratic Party. Considering the moral decay of the Washington Establishment and of politically, watered-down, Bush types, the RLA also has had little opposition among establishment Humpties and Dumpties.

It hasn’t been all downhill for the RLA. With respect to LGBTq-ism, for instance, a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats have vetoed legislation to advance LGBTq-ism. Their respective constituencies wouldn’t have it any other way. But how many of the same legislators have sought to counter LGBT promotional efforts by introducing legislation that would equate teaching the LGBTq agenda to second graders with pedophilia? Without enough of a political counterweight, the Democratic Party has been advancing in-your-face, Godless planks – the RLA seeks spiritual dominance – to replace traditional family ethics and God’s laws with its own laws.

The idea is to repackage biblical morals and to export them as a humanist, New Age Religion, throughout the world. The New Religion of the RLA repackages homosexuality as love between two humans conforming with the commandment of Jesus: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” regardless of gender. It’s not an “abomination” as scripture expressly states. RLA ideology has become theology – the spiritual component of George H.W. Bush’s New World Order.

Snowflakes routinely insult Trump’s intelligence yet he was apparently smarter than Clinton because he won. He was certainly sensitive enough and he had the right instinct to tap into the pulse of the nation’s distrust of her and her thinly-veiled, RLA planks.

Despite the best efforts of Clinton’s attendant media to sequester her shortcomings, she couldn’t fill a high school gym with paid volunteers while Trump was stretching college arenas, football stadiums and other venues to capacity. Tailgate parties comforted those who couldn’t be squeezed in. The sizes of Trump’s audiences were rarely mentioned by “news” stations. In this respect, Trump’s claim about CNN-Clinton collusion to downplay the support that he was getting is more than justified. YouTube amateur videos allowed anyone interested to gauge Trump’s draw strength. And for anyone who witnessed the buzz, it was apparent that an upset was possible.

What actually happened? 

Clinton lost because America was not ready for her, radical, collectivist vision. She couldn’t talk about it, outright, so she came across as having nothing of substance to say – as the boring, plastic lawyer-politician. The best lighting and makeup could not sequester media manipulation and topic tampering. It was specifically because she was shielded from controversial topics that she came across as a bland, listless figure. Her core faithful made it through the campaign by popping No-Doz, if not something stronger, to no end.  Enough cameras caught sight of the fainting spells. Rumors about a possible degenerative disease like Alzheimer’s didn’t help. The image of aides propping her up didn’t exactly coincide with the image of a robust Commander-in-Chief. 

In contrast to Hillary’s blasé campaign, Trump raised real, hurt issues within working America. Mostly, he projected energy. Although far from eloquent, his kitchen speech was understood by the masses, many of whom had not voted in years. Adding a few ideas of his own – which is a few more than Hillary introduced – Trump won.

Indeed, it shouldn’t have happened. Everything from the beast of the political system to the military industrial complex, as well as the Hollywood-US media syndicate, worked overtime against him. Even Bush and his CIA brotherhood refused to accept the non-establishment figure. More than one billion dollars in PAC money was stacked up against him. One can only speculate on the actual money-under-the-table sum. Nearly every mainstream newspaper endorsed Clinton. So did nearly every major television station. Illegal immigrants rode the carousels in swarms to vote several times for Clinton.  Even dead souls were resurrected. It was quite a ghoulish election night.

The tip of the carousel scandal eventually pierced Hillary’s pampered bottom when Democrats, through Jill Stein of the Green Party, backed a recount in the State of Michigan. Trump won the State by only 22,000 votes.  Curiously, the recount was abruptly halted and the media began to hush it up when results from the city of Detroit, revealed massive voting fraud in Clinton’s favor. 95% of Detroit voters voted for Clinton. Theoretically, it’s possible. But the recount revealed that voting machines in 248 of Detroit’s 662 precincts (37%) tabulated significantly more votes than the number of people who had signed in to vote. America’s a free country. Only in America do dead souls drive cars and planes, draw on Medicare, and vote in presidential elections.

“There’s always going to be small problems, to some degree, but we didn’t expect the degree of the problem we saw in Detroit. This isn’t normal,” Krista Haroutunian, Chairwoman of the county electoral commission, stated to the press. “Massive voter irregularities,” ran the NY Post headline. President Trump called the entire election “rigged in Clinton’s favor.” So-called Russian influence in the election was a tactic concocted by Clinton’s strategists, well in advance of election night. Since no proof of Russian meddling was ever presented, Clinton came across as a sore and dishonest loser.

At the Trump-Clinton debate in Nevada, Trump was asked by Chris Wallace if he would accept the election result. The question was stacked against Trump because it implied that he would be the eventual loser. Wallace said that there is a tradition in the country for the peaceful transition of power, “for the loser to concede to the winner the election result no matter how hard fought the campaign might be.” The cameras saw a smirking Clinton, bobbing her head in total agreement at the mention of “tradition,” ever-so-certain that she was of victory. When Trump said that he would decide later, whether or not to accept the result, Clinton chirped that Trump’s readiness to break with tradition is, “Horrifying.” 

The NY Times, propaganda machine headlined the next day: “Donald Trump Won’t Say if He’ll Accept Result of Election.” The opening paragraph reads: “In a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy, Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he might not accept the results of next month’s election if he felt it was rigged against him — a stand that Hillary Clinton blasted as “horrifying. 

“Horrifying?” His statement, “cast doubt on American democracy?”

A curious twist of fate, is it not? Two years have elapsed since the election and Clinton has not accepted the result, despite conceding defeat. Apparently, Obama, Biden, Soros, and other leading lights have also been unable to swallow the bitter pill of America saying, “No,” to Madame Hillary and the RLA. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is “casting doubt on American democracy?” Does she see anything “horrifying” when she looks at herself?

Indeed, Trump wasn’t supposed to win. The entire electoral system, including the corrupt Establishment from both political Parties and their attendant presstitutes sided against Trump. The Bush family led the charge against him from the “Republican” side of the aisle. They, too, have since confirmed their unwillingness to accept democracy, considering that Trump made mincemeat out of Jeb Bush in the primaries. All of it shouldn’t have happened, which is why the election night turnaround was a true miracle – perhaps, the most thrilling result in 150-plus years. Poll projection manipulations failed to coronate Clinton. It was genuine democracy, the popular will of the people – something that had been lacking, for so long. Voters saw through it all.

The RLA introduced during the joint reign of Bill and Hillary, slowed down during the Bush years. It came out of the closet under Obama. Nonetheless, the corrosive influence of the RLA has been eating away at the social fabric of America since the radical 60s when Hillary was salivating over the Luciferian ideals of Saul Alinsky, her “college mentor.” That’s Lucifer aka Satan or the Devil. 

Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” is a primer for overturning society. It’s dedicated to Lucifer who Alinsky honors on the dedication page as “the first radical.” Clinton only differs from Alinsky in one major way. She always believed that the system can be changed from within. And she has been at it ever since Billy made it to the White House. What did he address, first? Apparently, nothing was more life-line important than the issue of gays in the military. Americans weren’t aware it was an issue until Clinton’s made it one.

Credit her determination. Hillary has held true to the RLA course and she has succeeded in advancing radicalism from within. Is the world a better place for it?

Perhaps, one should ask the families of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of innocents who were killed by way of US policies and armaments in Serbia, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Ukraine, in Iraq, in Somalia, in Pakistan, in Yemen, and in Syria. What has Obama-Clinton & Clinton adventurism brought to these nations?

Taking note of how the War Party profits from blood, the Bush-Cheney, crime syndicate followed up on the model. In this respect, its arm-in-arm with Clinton Murder, Inc., with the Establishment Swamp, and with Peace Laureate Obama – the first, two-term president to have the honor of being at war for all eight years. Quite the distinction. Are Americans better off domestically or internationally because of War Party deeds? Let it not be forgotten that America is in the sights of a RLA transformation. Will it happen? Not likely, under Trump. It has been said that Satan always gets his due. Scary, is it not?

In the past, election wounds healed because of debate, patience, tolerance, and compromise – balm for the passions. Besides, differences between Republicans and Democrats were never significant. Anybody from the establishment can become president and every four years another anybody has been elected. President Anybody kept God at arm’s length and he didn’t encroach on the family regarding how to rear children. It was always, “Father knows best. 

To sum up, Obama-Clinton are categorically at odds with Christian tenets, with traditional family values, and with the libertarian ideals on which the US was founded. That is, they’re against liberty for the masses as the core principle, they’re against maximum, political freedom, and they’re against individual freedom of choice despite statements to the contrary.

Obama-Clinton collectivists are little different than Bolsheviks in the sense that they seek liberty for themselves and equality for the masses. History is a witness of the catchphrase lie: “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” Where equality exists there is not much liberty or fraternity and, certainly, not much prosperity. In every knot of history, otherwise referred to as revolutions, a ruling elite feeds on the blood and passions of the hoi polio until the privileged, inner circle consumes itself. Need anyone be reminded what Bolshevism did to Russia and to neighboring nations? Enough Americans saw through the Hillary façade to say, “No thank you,” to her RLA. Today, Trump is a finger in the dike restraining it.

What might the Clinton plan be for getting rid of Trump? Fact or fiction, the Clinton body count is impressive. 

See Part 1

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

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
LeaHelga FellayCudwieserJPHTheCelotajs Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
TheCelotajs
Guest
TheCelotajs

Hillary Clinton is one evil bitch. She has been all her life and would make Joseph Stalin look like a Saint.

JPH
Guest
JPH

Article seems waste of space. Apart from wanting power and money Clinton is far too close Wall Street Banks and corrupt money schemes like Pay-to-Play Clinton foundation to make this writer’s assertions about Clinton adhering to any ideology credible. Yes, Clinton knows to cater to a certain public to win their votes but that’s simply a tactic and nothing to do with her ideology which is egocentric to the hilt.

Cudwieser
Guest
Cudwieser

Bill, Hill and Chill (Chelsea) will be irradicated if anythinhg happens to Trump, just as a matter of reflex. What happens after is beyond imagination.

Helga Fellay
Guest
Helga Fellay

The Hillary this author describes can’t possibly be the same women the rest of us love to hate – there is nothing “left” about this neocon/neoliberal war hawk who is Henry Kissinger’s best buddy and never saw a war she didn’t like. She destroyed Honduras, Libya and the Ukraine. Her defining moment will always be that video interview when she said with glee “we came, we saw, he died hahahahaha” describing the torture and murder by being sodomized with a sword of the great pan-African leader Gaddafi – with utter amusement, something which only a completely soulless sociopath could do.

Lea
Guest
Lea

Does the author even know what a Marxist perspective is? Honestly, please American authors, try to educate yourselves before you write. In the eyes of any educated European, what you write comes out sounding like gibberish. Not to mention that you only add to the general confusion.
Words have definitions, and by no stretch of imagination is Hillary Clinton a Marxist. She is your run-of-the-mill American plutocratic psycho politician, only with even less brains than Obama, Bush the Lesser or Bill Clinton.

Latest

Putin’s State of the Nation Part III – Raising Russians

President Putin’s State of the Nation talk began with the most important element of any society – the family.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Parts I and II of this series outline much of Russia’s “face towards the world” in terms of both economic / trade and military matters. Part III actually comprises the great majority of what President Putin addressed in the Russian State of the Nation Address on Wednesday, 20 February. As he pledged upon his re-election to his fourth presidential term, the 66-year old leader focused primarily on domestic affairs within the Russian Federation.

The whole speech is available at Kremlin.ru, and by following this hyperlink.

We have selected excerpts along the reasoning of illuminating those parts of domestic policy in Russia that reveal why the globalist and secularist elíte in the West are so determined to block Russia’s success as a nation, even to isolate it and destroy it if possible. We will emphasize and comment on various points from the speech.

One of the biggest differences in Russia from the US is the centrality of traditional families, with children. Children are wanted and needed in the Russian Federation, and President Putin started his speech by addressing the matter of raising new Russians:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, citizens of Russia,

Today’s Address is primarily devoted to matters of domestic social and economic development. I would like to focus on the objectives set forth in the May 2018 Executive Order and detailed in the national projects. Their content and the targets they set are a reflection of the demands and expectations of Russia’s citizens. People are at the core of the national projects, which are designed to bring about a new quality of life for all generations. This can only be achieved by generating momentum in Russia’s development…

Therefore, the work of the executive branch at all levels should be coordinated, meaningful and energetic. The Government of Russia must set the tone.

At the same time, I would like to emphasise and repeat: our development projects are not federal and even less so agency-based. They are national. Their results must be visible in each region of the Federation, in every municipality. It is here, on the ground, that the majority of specific tasks is implemented.

Here, President Putin seems to be alluding to the importance of nation. While Russia has a much more openly socialist style government than the US does, it is nonetheless also much more efficient in its work in many ways. Communism failed, but it did teach some lessons about how to do a lot of work with few resources. There is a reason the largest nation on earth does not have to go into huge debt year after year.

Let me now share some specifics on our objectives. I will begin with the key objective of , which means providing all-around support to families.

Family, childbirth, procreation and respect for the elderly have always served as a powerful moral framework for Russia and its multi-ethnic people. We have been doing everything in our power to strengthen family values and are committed to doing so in the future. In fact, our future is at stake. This is a task shared by the state, civil society, religious organisations, political parties and the media.

This, while states in the US are trying to pass radical abortion laws to even be able to kill babies who survive abortions.

Russia has entered an extremely challenging period in terms of demographics. As you know, the birth rate is declining…

We succeeded in overcoming the negative demographic trends in the early 2000s, when our country faced extreme challenges. This seemed to be an impossible challenge at the time. Nevertheless, we succeeded, and I strongly believe that we can do it again by returning to natural population growth by late 2023 – early 2024.

Today, I wanted to talk about a new package of measures that has already been prepared to support families.

First: It is important that having children and bringing them up do not put families at the risk of poverty or undermine their wellbeing. As you know, we have already provided for the payment of subsidies for the first two children until they reach 18 months…

Starting January 1, 2020, I propose raising the bar to two subsistence wages per family member. This is what people have requested and these requests come directly into the Executive Office. This measure will increase the number of families entitled to additional benefits by almost 50 percent. Some 70 percent of families with one or two children will be able to benefit from help from the Government.

Second: At present, carers looking after children with disabilities and people disabled since childhood receive an allowance of only 5,500 rubles. I suggest increasing this to 10,000 rubles, starting July 1. Of course, I understand that it is still a small amount. However, it will be an additional measure of support for families with a child who needs special care.

Third: The income of Russian families must, of course, increase. This is a serious task that requires a comprehensive solution. I will speak about this in greater detail later. But we need direct measures. First of all, the tax burden on families needs to be relieved. The approach should be very simple: the more children there are, the lower the tax. I propose increasing federal tax relief on real estate for families with many children. I also propose lifting taxes on 5 square metres in a flat and 7 square metres in a house per each child…

Fourth: The Government and the Central Bank need to consistently maintain the policy to lower mortgage rates to 9 percent, and then to 8 percent or below, as stipulated in the May 2018 Executive Order. At the same time, special measures of support should be provided for families with children, of course… A family making a decision to buy housing certainly makes plans for a long or at least medium term, a lasting investment. But with this [present] programm, they take out a loan, start paying the installments, and the grace period ends. The interest is actually subsidized only for the first 3 or 5 years. I propose extending the benefit for the entire term of the mortgage loan.

Yes, of course, it will require additional funding, and the cost will be rather high: 7.6 billion rubles in 2019, 21.7 billion rubles in 2020, and 30.6 billion rubles in 2021. But the programme is estimated to reach as many as 600,000 families. We certainly need to find the money. We know where to get it. We have it, and we just need to use it in the areas that are of major importance to us.

And one more direct action solution. Considering the sustainability and stability of the macroeconomic situation in the country and the growth of the state’s revenues, I consider it possible to introduce another measure of support for families having a third and subsequent children. I suggest paying 450,000 rubles directly from the federal budget to cover this sum from their mortgage. Importantly, I propose backdating this payment starting January 1, 2019, recalculating it and allocating relevant sums in this year’s budget.

Let us see what we have. If we add this sum to the maternity capital, which can also be used for mortgage payments, we will get over 900,000 rubles. In many regions, this is a substantial part of the cost of a flat. I would like to draw the attention of the Government and the State Duma to this issue. If need be, the budget will have to be adjusted accordingly. An additional 26.2 billion rubles will be required for this in 2019. The relevant figures for 2020 and 2021 are 28.6 billion rubles and 30.1 billion rubles, respectively. These are huge funds but they should be allocated and used in what I have already described as a very important area.

There is a great deal more detail on the notion of various tax breaks for families with children. It is worth a read, and it is also worth noting the very clear language set forth here. It appears rather refreshing to hear these ideas laid out in such a blunt fashion.

 

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

Latest

Pressure mounts on Theresa May to agree to 3 month Brexit extension (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 181.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a look at how the EU, in coordination with forces inside the British Parliament, are pushing for Theresa May to agree to a three month “Brexit day” extension.

According to a Bloomberg, Theresa May must resign as British prime minister and Conservative leader later this year after delivering Brexit, according to politicians at the highest levels of her own government.  May has promised her party she will stand down before the next general election, slated for 2022, but she’s likely to face pressure to go within the next three months. Once the U.K. is out of the European Union, and local district elections on May 2 are over, the premier will have no reason to stay in office, one senior minister said, speaking privately. Britain is scheduled to leave the bloc on March 29.

A person familiar with another minister’s views agreed with the timescale, arguing that the prime minister should leave in the summer, so a new leader can be in place in time for the party’s annual conference in October. A third senior member of May’s administration pointed out that Tories had no way of formally seeking to remove May before December under the party’s internal leadership rules. May will never voluntarily resign, despite her previous pledge, the person said.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge

Theresa May once again failed to extract concessions from the EU27 on Wednesday after yet another meeting with Juncker (surprise, surprise) as the Continent refuses to budge on May’s demands for “legally binding changes” to the deal – specifically to the troublesome Irish backstop, which many Brexiteers fear could result in the UK being reduced to a “vassal state” of the EU by becoming interminably trapped in the customs union, with zero say over its rules. Talks between Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay and EU27 chief negotiator Michel Barnier on Thursday were similarly inconclusive.

And with only 36 days left until “Brexit Day”, it’s becoming increasingly clear that May will need to ask her EU colleagues for an extension to the two-year negotiating period, something that would cut against her commitment to take the UK out of the EU “as scheduled”, though she has never explicitly ruled it out. According to Bloombergthe EU expects May to request a 3-month “technical extension,” which would be the first, and hopefully only, delay, (because anything further would ratchet up the pressure for the UK to participate in the upcoming European Parliament elections…an unnecessary complication).

Still, without meaningful concessions on the backstop, it’s difficult to see a way forward. Rebellious Tories and the “Independent Group” have so far focused their efforts on securing a legally-binding commitment to take a “no-deal” exit off the table. And with the deadline unlikely to be extended past this point, if a deal isn’t reached during the March 21-22 UK-EU summit, he way forward will appear impossibly vague.

But with dozens of Tories reportedly ready to rebel unless the PM offers concrete reassurances that ‘no deal’ isn’t an option, and that rebellion will likely take the form of support for an amendment tabled by former minister Sir Oliver Letwin and Labour’s Yvette Cooper to give Parliament the power to delay Brexit Day if no deal is reached by mid-March.

Meanwhile, thanks to the latest round of defections, the “Independent Group” has become the fourth-largest party in Parliament.

But all of these threats likely won’t take on real significance until the March summit with the EU, thanks to the Continent’s reputation for holding out until the last minute. Meanwhile, MPs have told the media that a vote on May’s Brexit “Plan B” deal – which had been set for next week – is unlikely.

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

Latest

Trump’s Syria military pullout, not under John Bolton’s watch (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 89.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the announcement from the Trump White House that the United States has decided to station a ‘peacekeeping group’ of roughly 200 US soldiers in Syria for a ‘period of time’ after the much hyped withdrawal.

Once again we see that once the US enters a country for a regime change mission, it becomes nearly impossible to fully disengage, ultimately leaving America in the role of invader and occupier, for an indefinite amount of time.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT…

Despite President Donald Trump’s promises to withdraw American troops out of Syria, the US intends to maintain presence on the ground with a “small peacekeeping group” for an unspecified “period” of time, the White House said.

“A small peacekeeping group of about 200 will remain in Syria for a period of time,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement without elaborating.

Trump took the world by surprise back in December, when he announced the US withdrawal from Syria without specifying a timetable. The initiative was not well received in the Pentagon, even forcing Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to resign after clashing with Trump, as both the generals and politicians have been claiming that US presence in Syria is vital and that Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorist group would inevitably reemerge if all of some 2,000 Americans leave.

The US withdrawal is being stalled by concerns about potential Turkish incursion into the territories currently controlled by the US-backed Syrian Kurds. On Thursday, Trump had another phone call with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the issue. Washington wants Turkey to agree to a buffer ‘safe zone’ in northeastern Syria and is also contemplating arming the Syrian Kurds, despite Ankara’s strong opposition.

While the US continues its diplomatic maneuvering, some noted the irony, wondering if the White House was using the term ‘peacekeeping’ correctly or was even aware of what it actually means. Others questioned the logic and the motive of maintaining such a contingent on the ground, noting that 200 troops could serve as a human shield, but is unlikely to really sway the outcome of the conflict.

Traditionally, the term peacekeeping has been used to describe the UN Blue Helmets whose missions are strictly mandated by the Security Council. American troops, however, hardly have any legal basis to remain in Syria, as they had never been invited by the official government in Damascus.

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