[X] HEH HEH! WW3 Alert! Russia Threatens Imminent Nuclear War After NATO Launches Bombing Campaign Inside Russia, Congressman Massie & Other Leaders Call For The Immediate Removal Of Biden Under The 25th Amendment!
I can’t imagine anyone will impeach President Biden at this late date. And the teams that have been running things behind his figurehead will carry on as poorly for the next few weeks.
This after a judge illegally sold Alex's Info-War
Posted by: 3dc ||
11/20/2024 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
#1
He should have been removed years ago. I blame Clooney.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/20/2024 5:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Couldn't Trump just tell Zelensky that there will be consequences after January 20?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/20/2024 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
I think our boy Zel has done rather well for himself. He went from being a stand-up comedian, to a TV star in a sitcom about a high school teacher who becomes president of a country, to actually being the President of a famously corrupt country. Or at least playing the role.
#7
But he is still in charge of a country that has been invaded by a rapacious neighbor that has stolen parts of his country. While I understand he ain't poifect I think he's due a little slack.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Yaroslav Karpikov
[REGNUM] In the last week, there have been reports of the advancement of the Russian Armed Forces in the north-east of the Kharkiv region - our military is leveling the front line along the Oskol River, on November 14, an assault group managed to gain a foothold on the outskirts of Kupyansk. The Ukrainian Armed Forces group finds itself in a difficult situation, which is also recognized on the other side of the front line. The gradual liberation of the Kharkiv lands means, among other things, the restoration of unity in that part of historical Russia that was called "Slobozhanshchina".
It is the current Kharkiv region that is the core of this historical region, which also includes the modern Sumy and Belgorod regions, the Kursk border area and partly the north of the DPR and LPR.
The historical (and in fact ideological) narrative adopted in Kyiv implies that the south of the Sloboda lands, that is, “Sumy” and “Kharkiv”, are essentially original Cossack, read - Ukrainian lands.
The Kiev regime, despite all its ostentatious decommunization, made the works of academician Dmitry Bagaley, a pre-revolutionary historian and public figure who made a successful career under the Bolsheviks, during the era of the formation of the Ukrainian SSR and indigenization, the actual historical basis for such assertions.
EXPERIENCED IDEOLOGICAL SABOTEUR
On the one hand, it was thanks to the work of Bagaley, a native of Kyiv and later rector of the Imperial Kharkov University, that a systematic study of the history of Slobozhanshchina began.
But, on the other hand, Bagaley, a student of the Ukrainophile Nikolai Kostomarov and a native of the Polish gentry, the " khlopomaniac " Vladimir Antonovich, was himself, to put it mildly, not impartial. He could well have subscribed to the phrase of another left-wing radical from science, Mikhail Pokrovsky : history is politics, overturned into the past.
Bagaley had been sympathetic to Ukrainian "separatists" since his student years. At the same time, the historian-Ukrainizer did not suffer from persecution by the "bloody tsarism": in 1914-1917 he was elected mayor of Kharkov. Under the conditionally independent Ukrainian state of Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky, Bagaley almost took the post of prime minister. But he prudently refused the offer, preferring to become one of the founders of the national Academy of Sciences, created by decree of the same hetman. It is interesting that the Soviet government preferred "not to notice" these facts of the biography of the author of the fundamental "History of Sloboda Ukraine" (1918).
Actively welcoming Ukrainization, Bagaley covered the predominantly Cossack history of "Kharkovshchyna". As a result, the history of settlers from central Russia "accidentally" ended up in the background and the idea of Slobozhanshchyna was created as a region exclusively populated by Little Russians.
And since Bagaley was a teacher of many, already Soviet specialists, the history of Russian settlers in the modern Kharkov, Sumy regions and part of Donbass was lost. The descendants of Russian Kharkovites and residents of Sumy lands, receiving truncated knowledge in school and universities, gradually lost their historical connection with the "big" Russian people, who remained on the other side of the administrative border of the RSFSR. And post-Soviet generations have been repeating the Jesuit formula "Kharkiv is Ukraine!" since school.
The descendants of Russian service people of Slobozhanshchina live compactly in the modern Kharkiv and Sumy regions. Most of these people do not even imagine the history of the origin of their ancestors with Russian surnames ending in "-ov", "-ev", "-in" and as a result of the Ukrainization carried out, they firmly believe that they are "true Ukrainians - descendants of the Zaporozhian Cossacks".
To detoxify public consciousness, we must turn not to the “nationally conscious” manipulations and distortions of the Bagaley school, but directly to the archives, to historical documents. We will mention some of them in this article.
"FROM ANCIENT TIMES THEY CONSTITUTED A SPECIAL KIND"
Parts of the Kharkov, Kursk, Belgorod, Sumy, Voronezh regions, the LPR and DPR were part of the Slobodskaya or Slobodsko-Ukrainian province in 1765–1780 and 1796–1835 (the “Ukrainian” was the historical name for the outlying lands of the Russian state).
The term "Slobozhanshchina" was subsequently borrowed by historians from the name of the Slobodsko-Ukrainian province. And from archival documents it follows that the authorities of the Russian Empire considered this region as lands that had been inhabited for centuries by people from Great Russia. More precisely, settlers - "odnodvortsy".
One can understand who the odnodvortsy were, for example, from the decree of Emperor Paul I of November 3, 1798 (on the allocation of these subjects 15 dessiatines of land for each male soul). The decree explains:
“ Since ancient times, single-householders constituted a special kind called streltsy, gunners, Cossacks, boyar children, stanichniks and vorots ( vorots are gate guards whose duties included unlocking and locking the city gates and keeping the keys to them).
Emperor Paul refers to the "construction books" of 1648-1649. At that time, under his ancestor Alexei Mikhailovich, settlers were given "plots of land for each person separately, and they settled in separate households, which is why they adopted the name of single-householders."
In this decree of Paul I we see that the government remembers and values the services of the ancestors of the single-householders, which they rendered to Russia from ancient times.
And by the end of the 18th century, Great Russian single-homesteaders made up to half of the state-owned villagers “in the most affluent Russian provinces.”
CITIES OF REITERS AND GUNNERS
"Odnodvortsy" are the descendants of Russian service people (streltsy, soldiers, reiters, city service of boyar children, gunners, etc.), who formed the backbone of the population of new cities on the southern Russian border in the 17th century.
In the second half of this century, the Russian state began to expand into the steppe, to the south and west of the Belgorod line. New cities were founded and built: Akhtyrka, Valki, Kharkov, Kolontayev, Volnoye, Aleshnya, Kamennoye, Chuguyev, Ostrogozhsk and others.
Both Russian "settlers for eternal residence" and those who were sent to serve "in turns" - so to speak, on a rotational basis on a business trip - took part in the construction. Later, the Russian service people were joined by Little Russians (Cherkasy), who came to the tsarist land beyond the Belgorod line.
Often, taking into account the unsuccessful experience of Great Russians and Cherkassians living together in the city, the tsarist government left the fortress or prison in the jurisdiction of the Great Russian voivode and Russian service people, and settled the Little Russians next to the city, in the "Cherkassian" settlement. It turned out that only settlers from the central regions of the Russian state lived in the cities.
One can judge who made up the Russian service corporations of Kharkov and other tsarist cities by the “fairy tales” – as the settlers’ reports about themselves, their property and service were called in the 17th century.
THE TSAR'S "FAR SOUTHERN HECTARE" PROGRAM
The first example is a document that was submitted to the Duma clerk Semyon Titov at the congress in Kharkov in 1675. From it one can understand what “social groups” lived in the Kharkov district at that time.
Let us mention one more important point. The "fairy tale" indicated which of the settlers received the "local salary", that is, land holdings, thanks to which the single-homesteaders, their families and their descendants "settled" in the Sloboda Ukraines, on the distant southwestern borders of the Russian state.
So, the estates were owned by: three of the four heads of Kharkov families mentioned in the “tale” - spearmen, 63 of 75 reiters, 73 of 94 soldiers and fifty of 106 “city service of boyar children”.
The actual size of the estate varied from 20 to 30 quarters, that is, approximately from 11 to 16.5 hectares, if we consider that 1 quarter (chet) in the 17th century was equal to approximately 0.55 hectares.
For example, in the village of Tishki near Kharkov (the village still exists today under the name Russkie Tishki), the tsar allocated about 676 hectares of land for 42 settlers. One and a half kilometers from Russkie Tishki is the village of Borshchova of the Slobozhansky village council, or Borshchevoe, as it was called in the "fairy tales" of the 1670s. Here, the Great Russian settlers received over half a thousand hectares from Tsar Alexei - for houses and arable land. About the same amount was allocated to the sovereign's people who settled further north, in the village of Liptsy near Volchansk.
Liptsy is still on everyone's lips - in the first days of the SVO, the Russian Armed Forces entered the village. During the withdrawal of our troops from Kharkov in September 2022, control over Liptsy was lost. But since May 2024, after the offensive in the Vovchansk direction, our troops have once again been fighting to liberate the ancient Russian outpost, known since 1660.
In February–August 2022, battles took place near the village (formerly a Russian border town) of Zolochiv, 39 kilometers from the border with the Belgorod region. Soviet historical sources indicated that Zolochiv was founded in 1677 by Cossacks from the Dnieper Ukraine. But archival documents clarify the picture.
Yes, the Cherkasy Cossacks of the Zolochiv hundred who entered Russian service also lived here (according to the 1691 census, they were commanded by two centurions of the Kharkov regiment, Yakov Semenov, son of Kovalevsky, and Ilyash Vasiliev, son of Gonchar ).
But no less significant part of the population were Russian odnodvortsy - city service people, soldiers and reiters under the command of the Great Russian city governor. Earlier, IA Regnum told in detail about this system of governing the Slobodskaya land - when two parallel verticals of power existed for the Cherkass and Great Russians.
PANKOVS AND ESKOVS ARE WAITING FOR THE RUSSIAN ARMY
In general, judging by the documents from the archives, Russian service people received estates and served under the command of Russian governors in many settlements to the north, east and south of the city of Kharkov - in the Kharkov, Zmievsky, Chuguevsky, Saltovsky, Zolochevsky, and Volchansky districts.
But the settlement area was not limited to the region that the current Ukrainian government calls “Kharkiv region”.
There were especially many Great Russian settlements to the south of Sumy: Kamenovsky, Aleshansky, Volnovsky, Miropolsky districts and to the northeast of Sumy: Miropolsky, Sudzhansky districts.
If you look at the maps, it is easy to see that the Russian Slobodskaya land covers both parts of Russian regions and territories that currently remain under the control of the Kyiv authorities.
Single-farmers as a separate class in the Russian Empire (including in the Kharkov province) were officially abolished by the opinion of the State Council “On the land arrangement of state peasants”, which was approved by Emperor Alexander II in 1868.
But, according to ethnographers, until the beginning of the 20th century, the descendants of the first settlers of the Slobodsky lands preserved their own traditions, which differed from those of Little Russia - including trying to marry their own people, without mixing with people of other classes. Some of the odnodvortsy were registered as petty bourgeois of the Kharkov, Kursk and Voronezh provinces, and some as peasants. Those descendants of the odnodvortsy who became wealthy villagers were registered as "rural bourgeoisie" after the revolution, and they were subjected to dispossession.
Many old-time families were “decimated” by the terrible famine of 1932–1933, a disaster that also shook many regions of the RSFSR and Kazakhstan, but which current Kiev historiography considers to be an allegedly “exclusively” Ukrainian tragedy – the Holodomor.
But even now, typical single-court surnames - Pankov, Yeskov, Golovin or Vityutin - are not uncommon in the same Kharkov region. Incidentally, the Voronezh Vatutins also come from single-court surnames, to which the Soviet military leader General of the Army Nikolai Vatutin, the liberator of Kiev, who died at the hands of Bandera militants, belongs.
It is impossible to rule out that the descendants of Great Russian settlers are among those Kharkiv residents who indicated Russian as their native language in the 2001 census (44.3%), and also among the 53.8% of officially “Ukrainian-speaking” people. But first, the indigenization of 1921–1930, and then the post-Soviet derussification (which began long before the 2014 coup) are doing their job. If in 1991 Russian was the language of instruction for 72% of students in the Kharkiv region, then in 2005 this share fell to 45%, and in 2023/24, for obvious reasons, it was reduced to zero (formal 0.56% with 99.4% of instruction in the “mova”). Naturally, the “purely Cossack-Ukrainian” history of the region is taught in the right way — in the spirit of the Bagaley school.
Only the liberation of our historical lands can save the Russian language and Russian culture in Slobozhanshchina and once again instill in generations of Kharkovites and residents of Sumy an objective view of history.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Kirill Velesov
[REGNUM] Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree approving a new version of the doctrine "Fundamentals of State Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence." The basic principle of the doctrine has not changed, it states that nuclear weapons (NW) are an extreme measure to protect the country's sovereignty. At the same time, adjustments were made against the backdrop of a new round of escalation provoked by the United States and its allies.
At the end of last week, it became known that the United States no longer objects to Ukraine's strikes with American long-range missiles on Russian territory. In particular, this concerns the ATACMS system, which the Ukrainian Armed Forces have already used several times - then the strikes hit Donbass and Crimea. Now, with the permission of outgoing US President Joe Biden, such missiles can be sent to all Russian regions.
Ukrainian authorities have long asked the West to remove this barrier, arguing that such attacks could significantly affect the situation on the battlefield. Russian officials have called this view wrong: these strikes will not have a fundamental impact on anything, but will only hasten the end of Ukraine.
Washington has not officially confirmed the information about lifting the ban, but the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell said on November 18 that the US had indeed made such a decision, and it was discussed at a meeting of EU foreign ministers. According to him, we are talking about missiles with a range of about 300 kilometers.
And already on November 19, the press service of the Russian Ministry of Defense reported that air defense systems shot down five American ATACMS ballistic missiles over the territory of the Bryansk region on the night of Tuesday.
It is noted that the Ukrainian Armed Forces launched a strike with six missiles: five of them were shot down by the S-400 and Pantsir systems, the sixth missile was damaged. Its fragments fell on the technical territory of the military facility, causing a fire. There were no casualties or damage as a result.
At the same time, the possibility of allowing the Kyiv regime to strike Russia with its missiles was first seriously discussed in the United States back in September. At that time, Biden said that the issue was under discussion.
In response, Vladimir Putin stated that if such attacks on Russian territory do occur, this would mean NATO’s direct entry into conflict with Russia – Moscow would take appropriate measures and give its response.
Soon, the head of the Russian state announced changes to the country's nuclear doctrine, the necessity of which was dictated by the changing international situation.
WHAT HAS CHANGED?
The nuclear doctrine of a state is not a dogma established once and for all, but a strategy that must keep pace with rapidly changing times. In the US, for example, it is rewritten for each new president.
The current updates to the Russian doctrine are precisely a response to the challenges facing the country. Russia is demonstrating to its enemies the line beyond which a potential enemy will face brutal retribution.
Russia's updated nuclear strategy illustrates the very essence of the idea of nuclear deterrence.
“Nuclear deterrence is aimed at ensuring that a potential adversary understands the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies,” the document says.
The doctrine lists the conditions for the use of nuclear deterrence. In particular, it states that the conditions for neutralizing threats are "the presence of a potential enemy and its deployment of missile defense systems and means, medium- and shorter-range cruise and ballistic missiles, high-precision non-nuclear and hypersonic weapons, strike unmanned vehicles of various basings, and directed energy weapons that can be used against the Russian Federation."
In addition, it is stipulated that nuclear deterrent forces may be used in the event that a potential adversary takes actions aimed at defeating (destroying, annihilating) ecologically hazardous facilities of the Russian Federation, which may lead to man-made, ecological or social disasters.
It is emphasized that the use of nuclear weapons remains an extreme and necessary measure in the event of a threat to statehood; Russia “is making all necessary efforts to reduce the nuclear threat and prevent the aggravation of interstate relations that could provoke military conflicts, including nuclear ones.”
"We have been discussing changes to the nuclear doctrine for a long time. Moreover, it has changed before. As threats to us grew, we had to create response options, which Putin spoke about directly. No one is particularly hiding the fact that changes to the nuclear doctrine are the creation of that very counter-threat to the events that are happening around Russia. Everything was said directly and openly," political scientist Vladimir Kornilov said in a conversation with the Regnum news agency.
An important point: under the nuclear umbrella now is not only Russia itself, but also its allies, in particular Belarus.
If in the earlier version of the doctrine a response with nuclear weapons was allowed when the enemy launched ballistic missiles, now such a measure can also be applied when attacking Russia using conventional weapons. For example, when reliable information appears about a massive launch of aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, etc. towards Russia.
"The previous version of the principles of state policy only spoke about the launch of ballistic missiles as a condition for a retaliatory strike. Now we are talking about the launch of aircraft, tactical and strategic cruise missiles, as well as drones, hypersonics, and in general any massive launch of aircraft," Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, told Regnum earlier.
Another key addition is the use of nuclear deterrence in the event that an attack is carried out by a non-nuclear state, but it acts with the support of a country that possesses such weapons. In addition, aggression by any country that is part of a military bloc will be qualified as participation in this attack by the entire bloc.
In addition, nuclear deterrence can be used against a country that provides its territory or resources to an aggressor for an attack on Russia. Also, the basis for the use of nuclear weapons is the creation or expansion of military blocs, which leads to the approach of their military infrastructure to the Russian borders.
As before, the decision to use nuclear weapons is made by the country's president.
RETRIBUTION IS INEVITABLE
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev emphasized the importance of the changes made to the nuclear doctrine on his Telegram channel, linking them to the US decision on long-range missiles.
"The use of alliance missiles in this way can now be qualified as an attack by the bloc's countries on Russia. In this case, the right arises to launch a retaliatory strike with weapons of mass destruction against Kiev and the main NATO facilities, wherever they are. And this is already WWIII (the third world war. - Ed.)," Medvedev wrote.
The innovations in the nuclear doctrine were also commented on by the press secretary of the Russian president Dmitry Peskov. According to him, it was necessary to bring the document into line with the current situation.
"Russia has always viewed nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, the use of which is an extremely necessary measure. <…> Nuclear deterrence is aimed at ensuring that a potential adversary understands the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation or its allies," Peskov told journalists.
The West has not yet had time to react to the changes in Russia's nuclear doctrine, although one can guess what this reaction will be. It is enough to recall the comments of American and European officials after the announcement of the updates in September of this year. At that time, the Western political establishment criticized this step.
“Changing Russia’s nuclear doctrine is irresponsible,” said US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
In turn, the Western press was more reserved in its assessments and acknowledged that Russia made the decision to make changes to its nuclear doctrine because of the Ukrainian conflict, or more precisely, the actions of Kyiv’s allies, which continue to escalate the confrontation.
As for American missile strikes on Russian territory, they may continue, Vladimir Kornilov admits.
"Once the command has been given, the go-ahead has been given, then they are preparing to use it. I think that the Rubicon has already been crossed. And this was done deliberately, including in order to add problems to the future US president," the source told Regnum.
[Breitbart] Retired Deputy Border Patrol Agent J.J. Carrell tells Congress that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is responsible for “the largest mass invasion into America that the world has ever seen.”
During a hearing before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability, Carrell testified that President-Elect Donald Trump was the “greatest border President in American history” while referring to President Joe Biden as “the worst” in history.
Carrell retired from his position at the United States Border Patrol in Biden’s first year.
“On his first day in office, I watched in horror as ninety-four Executive Orders cascaded down from Washington, D.C. obliterating every immigration policy that had provided the most secure border in America’s history,” Carrell testified:
Border Patrol Agents were forced to carry out unconstitutional orders that violated every law in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
By the action of DHS Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, President Biden was able to create policy out of thin air, ignoring federal immigration law, and facilitating the largest mass invasion into America that the world has ever seen.
Carrell estimates that some 50 million illegal aliens now reside across the U.S., though other estimates place that figure at around 11 to 22 million.
“Between one in six and one in seven residents in America is an illegal alien. America has suffered the greatest demographic shift in modern history,” Carrell said. “The fundamental transformation of America has begun.”
“I state, with complete certainty, that Biden, Harris, and Mayorkas intentionally, strategically, and purposely weaponized illegal immigration and used it as a tool to fundamentally transform America,” he testified.
U.S. Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies has found that under Biden and Mayorkas, the foreign-born population has reached an unprecedented 51.6 million as of March of this year.
The rise in the foreign-born population under Biden is equivalent to nearly two years of births in the U.S. and larger than the populations of 33 states.
#1
This year the House voted to impeach Mayorkas. Then the Senate voted not to consider the House action. Apparently the Senate did not consider this a "high crime and misdemeanor".
[ZH] What’s not par for the course, and is a new phenomenon since 2016, is members of the GOP eager to denounce their own president-elect’s cabinet picks in full view of the public.
Via The Daily Beast (emphasis added):
“When it comes to Donald Trump’s new Cabinet picks, there’s at least one that his former second-in-command doesn’t approve of: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for health secretary.
“If confirmed, RFK, Jr. would be the most pro-abortion Republican appointed secretary of HHS in modern history,” former Vice President Mike Pence said in a statement touting the “pro-life” record of the first Trump administration…
He pleaded with Republican lawmakers to shoot down Trump’s HHS choice.
“I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as secretary of Health and Human Services,” Pence said.”
Republican and The Atlantic writer Tom Nichols is highly upset about what Tulsi Gabbard might be allowed to do at the helm of the intel community.
Matt Gaetz, potential future Attorney General, is also getting piled on by his own party to a degree that perhaps hasn’t been seen ever.
Via Associated Press (emphasis added):
“Gaetz is unpopular with many fellow House Republicans…
Here are what Republicans are saying about him:…
JOHN BOLTON, former U.N. ambassador and national security adviser:
“It must be the worst nomination for a Cabinet secretary in American history. I think this is something that falls well outside the scope of deference that should be given to a president in nominating members of the senior team. Gaetz is not only totally incompetent for this job, he doesn’t have the character. He is a person of moral turpitude.””
The rub here is that a specific breed of Trump appointee in the vein of longtime Swamp Latinx boy-toy Marco Rubio appears to get a very generous pass from both RINOs and Democrats.
Why is it, one might ask, that “Republican strategist” and The View co-host Ana Navarro — who has been trashing Trump for years as a fascist — and many of her ilk would be so giddy over the Rubio nomination that she would go out of her way to praise him on television?
Via Entertainment Weekly (emphasis added):
“After months of sounding alarms over the dangers of a second-term Donald Trump presidency, The View cohost Ana Navarro has praised the president-elect after speculation arose indicating that he might appoint conservative senator Marco Rubio to his cabinet.
In a rare on-air move, the 52-year-old Republican panelist praised a member of her own political party on Tuesday's live show, admitting that she's known Rubio for a long time, though the pair haven't "spoken in years" on a personal level, she said.
"I will say this, Marco is qualified, he's been on foreign relations in the senate for many years. I'm happy because he knows Latin America, which, for me, is a region that's often forgotten. He speaks Spanish, he knows who these leaders are, he knows what the issues are," Navarro said, after speculation mounted that Trump would name Rubio as Secretary of State. "I think he's going to come in hot on places like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, which I care about enormously."”
THE TL;DR TAKEAWAY
“Right” vs. “left” is increasingly anachronistic nonsense.
The cabinet war shows us that the real conflict now is establishment vs. populist, and the battlefield at this moment in history is for the president’s ear at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. come January.
What happens when a candidate bypasses the usual vetting process, lacks public trust, and faces a campaign riddled with missteps? Victor Davis Hanson unpacks the story of Kamala Harris’s rise and fall, a political journey unlike any other.
From being selected as Joe Biden's running mate in a behind-the-scenes deal to becoming one of the most controversial figures in modern politics, Harris’s story is one of failed narratives and public skepticism. Hanson explores her inability to connect with voters, the disastrous strategy of running out the clock, and her repeated struggles to answer critical questions about her record, policies, and ties to the Biden administration.
Could anything have saved her campaign, or was it doomed from the start? Hanson delivers a scathing analysis of a campaign that will be remembered as a cautionary tale in American politics.
The view from Somalia. No, really — this is a staff editorial by a Garowe Online editorial page staffer.
[Garowe] Amidst the fervor of forming a new administration, House Speaker Mike Johnson has endorsed President-elect Donald Trump ...The cad! Twice caught beating wimmin!... 's controversial cabinet nominations, describing them as "disruptors" needed to rattle the bureaucratic norms of the nation's capital. Speaking on CNN ...formerly the Cable News Network, now who know what it might stand for... 's "State of the Union," Johnson, who is now the leading Republican voice in Congress, defended the selections that have polarized political observers.
Johnson articulated his view that the appointees, though unconventional or embattled by past controversies, are precisely what the American electorate has signaled they desire in their leaders. "The American people have believed and delivered a mandate for change," he stated, insisting that these individuals were chosen "not just for their loyalty to Trump, but for their capacity to reform and revitalize the government's inner workings."
His comments reflect a broader narrative within the Republican Party that seeks to distance itself from traditional Washington politics, embracing instead a more aggressive approach to governance. Critics of the picks have raised concerns over qualifications and the potential for ethical lapses, pointing to the likes of Pete Hegseth, who has faced allegations of sexual misconduct, and the polarizing figure of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., among others.
As Trump prepares to take office, the discourse around his cabinet continues to reveal deep divisions. While some within the GOP and outside commend the fresh faces and outsider perspective, others fear the implications of placing individuals in key positions who may not have the necessary experience or who might bring their own set of controversies into the fold.
Johnson's endorsement of the "disruptor" strategy underscores the tension between political innovation and the established governance norms, a theme that is likely to dominate discussions as Trump's administration takes shape.
#7
We need Johnson to be BG John Buford until Jan 20.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/20/2024 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Interesting story on Lutnick. Never heard it before.
Posted by: Regular joe ||
11/20/2024 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Sunny Hostin was forced to read this by network lawyers after claiming Gaetz was guilty. “Matt Gaetz has long denied all allegations, calling the claims, quote, ‘invented,’ and saying in a statement to ABC News that ‘this false smear following a three-year criminal investigation should be viewed with great skepticism,’” Hostin read. “The DOJ investigation was closed with no charges being brought.”
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/20/2024 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
If just being accused is tantamount to being guilty, someone should accuse Sunny of being a prostitute. See how she likes it.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Dmitry Polyakov
[REGNUM] A month and a half after the start of the ground operation in Lebanon, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced the start of the second stage. The main goal is to destroy Hezbollah's missile potential.
The Israeli army has made its largest attempt to break into its northern neighbor's territory. At the same time, the Jewish state continues to carry out daily airstrikes on the "land of cedars." Not only the border areas in the south are under fire, but also the Bekaa Valley and the suburbs of Beirut.
However, behind the military component of the operation there are other aspects.
BETTING ON COLLABORATION
As a result of Israeli bombing in the border zone of Lebanon, more than 40 thousand residential buildings in almost 40 settlements have already been destroyed.
There is a price for hosting vicious, genocidal scum who turn out not to be strong or clever enough to carry it off.
It is noteworthy that there are several completely untouched towns in the area. Among them are Rmesh, Ain Ebel, Maroun ar-Ras, Dbel, located in the Bint Jebel region, and al-Klaya in the Marjayoun region. These small towns are populated mainly by Maronite Christians.
In other words, towns that are not hosting the vicious, genocidal scum, etc..
Formally, the reason these cities are not under Israeli attack is the mediation efforts of the Catholic Church. Residents regularly receive assurances from the Apostolic Nuncio (Vatican Ambassador) in Lebanon that the Christian border areas will remain safe. In addition, a diplomatic representative of the Holy See has repeatedly visited the Lebanese-Israeli border since October 7, 2023, including on a humanitarian mission.
But Israel may also have other reasons for leaving Christian cities untouched.
One of the stated goals of the ground operation is to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon.
Said buffer zone having been defined by Israel as not hosting that vicious, genocidal scum, etc., exactly like those Christian cities/towns.
In the recent past, such a project was already implemented in the form of the so-called "South Lebanon Security Zone", which existed from 1985 to 2000. Formally, it was controlled by the South Lebanon Army (SLA), a paramilitary formation consisting of Maronites, Shiites and Druze. However, in reality, the zone was an Israeli protectorate with a military presence of the IDF.
It is noteworthy that many of the AJL commanders came from the cities of Rmesh, Dbel and Ain Ebel, which remain untouched today. In addition, it is known that the inhabitants of Marun ar-Ras and Klaia collaborated with Israel. It is quite possible that today the Jewish state is again returning to the tactics of interaction with the Maronite population. And there are some prerequisites for this.
Currently, Lebanese society is extremely polarized. There is no single position on the Israeli invasion. One part of the citizens supports the continuation of the resistance, while the other blames Hezbollah for the conflict and supports its disarmament, as well as negotiations with Israel.
This position is most often taken by supporters of right-wing nationalist parties, dominated by the Maronite Kataeb and Lebanese Forces. Moreover, during the Lebanese civil war (1975–1990), prominent Maronite families such as Gemayel and Chamoun briefly collaborated with the Jewish state to achieve their own political goals. Israel’s bet on the Maronites may therefore be a well-founded move.
DESTABILIZATION STRATEGY
Israel's current actions are aimed not only at inflicting a military defeat on Hezbollah, but also at significantly reducing support for the movement. This strategy is being implemented through the internal destabilization of its northern neighbor.
The systematic bombing of southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley and the suburbs of Beirut suggests that Israel is seeking to displace more than a million Shiites, which in turn is expected to lead to social tensions in the "Land of the Cedars."
Already, about half a million Lebanese have fled the war to neighboring Syria, and almost 900,000 to the interior of the country. This has immediately caused tensions within Lebanese society. In addition, Israel has also begun to strike Shiite areas in cities where the majority of the population is made up of members of other faiths, which makes them see Shiites as a threat to their security.
…because they are…
Therefore, massive Israeli bombings are aimed not only at the military component, but also indirectly intensify interfaith confrontation.
Another goal the Jewish state likely wants to achieve through its attacks is to reduce support for Hezbollah within Shiite society.
The insight is blinding.
In Lebanon, the Shiite voice is not only Hezbollah, but also the Amal party. It is important to note that there are significant socioeconomic differences between their electorates. The first party has always been the focus of the disadvantaged strata of the population, while the second party has been the focus of the middle class and the bourgeoisie, which has created the image of Amal as a more respectable party in the Lebanese political system.
Does Amal also have a terrorist army, or is that Hezbollah’s special role?
Moreover, the stratification of Shiites also depends on their places of settlement. The Bekaa Valley is generally home to a poorer population. In southern Lebanon, on the contrary, citizens are more affluent. Most of the leaders of the Shiite community also come from this region. Understanding these differences, in recent years Hezbollah has been actively expanding its support base in the south of the country, taking away the electorate from Amal.
However, it is the southerners who have suffered the most in the current conflict. In order not to lose their support, the Party of God is allocating small compensation: $300 for a family of four and $100 for each adult male.
They have the funds for that after that billion dollars of gold and cash was burnt up?
However, these amounts are unlikely to cover all the damage incurred. As a result, there are already signs of discontent in the Shiite community, which may appear in the future.
Another consequence of the Israeli operation was the deepening of differences between Hezbollah's allies. First, tensions increased between Hezbollah and Amal. Following the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, Amal Secretary General Nabih Berri called for an unconditional ceasefire. His position was supported by Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Druze leader Walid "Wally" Jumblatt.
All three agreed to a cessation of hostilities and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the redeployment of the Lebanese army to the south of the country.
Secondly, Gebran Bassil, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, another Hezbollah partner in the March 8 Coalition, also criticized the Shiite party. In his opinion, the “united fronts” strategy chosen by the “Axis of Resistance,” which implies the unification of all pro-Iranian forces against Israel, was a fatal mistake.
It is noticeable that as the conflict grows, Hezbollah's domestic political partners are increasingly distancing themselves from it and advocating for a ceasefire rather than continued resistance. In the current circumstances, the Party of God will be forced to either take their position into account and not put forward excessive conditions in the negotiations, or it will remain in the minority.
Thus, the current Israeli ground operation pursues several goals at once, and the military aspect is only one of them. In a month and a half of military action, the Jewish state was unable to destroy Hezbollah's military potential. However, it managed to change the conditions in which the Shiite movement exercised its power.
Lebanese society is becoming increasingly divided. Hezbollah is losing support among both its political partners and its supporters. Moreover, it no longer has control over the entire south of the country. These factors, rather than military superiority, may be decisive in the current conflict.
Those factors result from the IDF’s military superiority, not separate from it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
