Finally a bit of good news from America. After endless attempts from lower courts to derail this policy, that I would regard as both “common sense” and “not extensive enough”, the US Supreme Court has finally ruled that Trump’s so called “Muslim ban” (ie, a temporary ban on immigration from 6 countries that just happen to be Muslim majority, and which are considered to be potential terrorist hotspots), is in fact constitutional.
THE US SUPREME Court is letting the Trump administration enforce most of its 90-day ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.
Just for the record, I think it’s absolute insanity that it even had to go this far. I think it’s absurd that the elected President can have his orders overruled by any random judge in the country, even in the lowest of courts. I do understand that there needs to be some way to keep in line and to make sure that he doesn’t violate the constitution with his orders, but the Supreme Court alone should be the one court with the power to do so.
The action today is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his presidency to date.
Controversial… even though a small majority of US citizens actually support the ban. In fact, a higher percentage of US citizens support the ban, than support Trump himself. The only reason this became such a controversy, was because of a vocal minority of lunatics complaining about it, and getting a platform to do so, from the treacherous mainstream media. The majority of people have seen the consequences that mass immigration from the Muslim world has had on Europe, and don’t want to see a similar epidemic of rapes, child grooming, acid attacks, terrorism, etc., to happen in America as well.
The court did leave one category of foreigners protected, those “with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”, the court said in an unsigned opinion. The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.
And here’s hoping they’ll decide in October that the original ban wasn’t extensive enough, and start including other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia.
A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have sharply criticised the ban, saying it unfairly targets Muslims.
No, because there are plenty of Muslim majority countries in the world, including some of the most populous ones, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria etc, which aren’t included in the ban, and non-Muslim minorities living in the targeted countries, are also subject to the ban. Doesn’t seem unfair to me and even if was, does anybody honestly care? The American people have their own needs, and those of their loved ones to worry about, and can hardly be expected to put the needs of of citizens in countries which have adversarial relationships with America, ahead of their own.
Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.
The anticipation is killing me.
The ban would apply to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Please add more.
The Trump administration said the ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before 2 October, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.
It’s a well known fact that America and Europe’s greatest ally in the Middle East is Israel. What isn’t as well known, is that their second greatest ally is Saudi Arabia. You know Saudi Arabia right? That’s the country which carries out public beheadings, has the death penalty for homosexuality, punishes victims of rape for the “crime of adultery” etc. Basically, Saudi Arabia is what you would get, if ISIS was a country. Yet somehow, this country is apparently a key ally of the liberal West, whose value system is supposed to be the exact opposite of all this.
Anyway, an investigation was conducted in the UK with regards to foreign funding of terrorism in the country. Apparently the report might not ever see the light of day, because it reveals something that is pretty well known to anyone who actually pays attention and researches this topic… that Saudi Arabia are the ones to blame.
An investigation into the foreign funding of extremist Islamist groups may never be published, the Home Office has admitted.
Sure why would the public want to know something like that? Why would the public care about finding out who is financing the terrorists that keep killing them?
The inquiry commissioned by David Cameron, was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in December 2015, in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Isis into Syria.
Yeah, sure. Airstrikes against ISIS. The same ISIS who are at war with Assad. The same Assad that David Cameron said, needs to be removed from power. Are we really supposed to believe that Cameron was bombing ISIS at the same time he was saying that Assad has to go?
But although it was due to be published in the spring of 2016, it has not been completed and may never be made public due to its “sensitive” contents.
“Sensitive”, meaning that it might anger the British public to learn that their government, as well as other governments all across the Western world, are allied with a country which finances the terrorists that are responsible for the spate of attacks in Europe the last few years.
It is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which the UK recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to.
The UK (and the US), as well as other Western states, arm Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia then arms terrorists. Terrorists then use arms to kill Western citizens. Therefore, Western governments are directly responsible for their own citizens being killed by terrorists.
A spokesperson from the Home Office told The Independent a decision on the publication of the report would be taken “after the election by the next government”.
Of course. It might effect the way the people choose to vote, if they found out that their government is arming the people who keep murdering them on the streets. My guess as well, is that the report won’t actually get published (at least not if the Conservative Party win). It will be flushed down the memory hole.
But in a separate interview with The Guardian, a spokesperson said the report may never be published, describing its contents were “very sensitive”.
It might offend our great ally Saudi Arabia. Sure, they share absolutely none of our values, and they’re directly responsible for so many deaths in our country, but we need them. They’re a great and trusted ally in our conflicts with all those other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya etc, that never actually did anything to us.
Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, has written a letter to the Prime Minister pressing her on when the report will be published and what steps she proposes to take to address “one of the root causes of violent extremism in the UK”.
She’ll take absolutely no steps whatsoever. Not only that, she won’t even try to defend it, because there is literally no defence whatsoever. For example, lets look at this video, where an official is asked to justify their condemnation of Iran’s alleged lack of democracy, while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s much more blatant lack of democracy.
Watch as Stuart Jones, a high-level acting official in the State Dept, is asked why they criticize Iranian elections but never Saudi Arabia: pic.twitter.com/RLkKGn48Z7
It’s absolutely incredible. The awkward silence is so long, that you could genuinely believe that the video had frozen for a while. There’s no moral justification whatsoever for the West’s undying defence of Saudi Arabia, while at the same time, they condemn countries like Syria and Iran for their alleged lack of democracy and human rights. The fact is, they don’t give a damn about either of these things. They’re just an excuse that they use to cover for their real motivations, whenever they want to launch a war or regime change against a targeted country.
“You will agree with me that the protection of our country, of the British people, is the most important job of any government,” he wrote. “Certainly, more important than potential trade deals with questionable regimes, which appear to be the only explanation for your reticence.
No, they don’t agree with you at all. They don’t give a damn about protecting the British people.
“When will this report be finished and published? And what steps do you propose to take to address one of the root causes of violent extremism in the UK?”
“Never” and “none”.
Mr Brake accused Ms May of adopting a “short-sighted approach” to the funding of violent Islamist groups in the UK and urged that those who fund them should be called out publicly.
Accusing the Conservatives of being “worried about upsetting their dodgy friends in the Middle East”, he said party had “broken their pledge to investigate funding of violent Islamist groups in the UK”.
He added: “That short-sighted approach needs to change. It is critical that these extreme, hard line views are confronted head on, and that those who fund them are called out publicly.”
But…but… that might offend our great and trusted ally. We need to be more tolerant and accepting of them, when they finance the terrorists that kill our people.
It comes after Home Secretary Amber Rudd suggested during a leadership debate, that UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia are good for industry.
That’s all that matters to these people. Making money. Who cares about the long term effects of their short term greed?
The Government has recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to Saudi Arabia and a stream of British ministers have visited the kingdom to solicit trade, despite its ongoing involvement in the bombing campaign in Yemen.
Meanwhile they constantly condemn Assad and Russia for bombing ISIS strongholds
Government figures compiled by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) show the UK has licenced over £4.1 billion of arms to the Middle East since the last election in May 2015, and that two thirds of UK arms exports go to the Middle East.
And then some of those exported arms come right back into the UK and get used against UK citizens.
I’m feeling very cynical about democracy and electoral politics in general these days. The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that democracy just isn’t a viable system of government at all. I mean in all honesty, is anyone ever really happy with what they get? Just take our situation here in Ireland for example. Is anybody, even the people who voted for Fine Gael or Fianna Fail actually happy with the current government? How about the previous Fine Gael/Labour coalition? Was anyone pleased with that government? Or the Fianna Fail led one before that, etc.? Honestly, I can’t think of anyone who feels that any recent democratically elected Irish government actually represents the interests of the Irish people. But yet, we keep voting every single election, expecting things to be different next time, and we keep getting let down.
This conclusion is reflected when I look elsewhere. Take Britain for example. The yes side in the Brexit campaign won by a very slim majority. The 48% who voted against it are furious and have been restless in their attempts to get the result overturned in their favour. The political establishment is almost entirely anti-Brexit in its leanings and seems to be on the side of the losing minority, rather than the winning majority. No matter what happens, the end result is going to leave roughly half the country feeling screwed over. Either the large minority who only just barely lost, will resent being removed from the EU, or somehow by hook or by crook, the political establishment will find a way to overturn it eventually, thus screwing over the small majority who won.
In America, I look at the situation between Trump and Hillary. We had one candidate who was in favour of mass immigration, destructive freed trade deals, escalating conflicts around the world, etc., and then we had one candidate who opposed this. The candidate who opposed this won by the rules of their electoral system, but lost the popular vote, therefore undermining his legitimacy right away. To make matters worse, after a few good months were he seemed to be sticking to his promises, he suddenly, roughly a little over a month ago has started doing a U-Turn. No sign of the Mexican border wall. No desire anymore to pull out of the destructive NAFTA agreement. Attacking Syria and therefore making their relationship with Russia worse, after having promised to leave Syria alone and work on improving their relationship with Russia.
Smug, anti-Trump types will sneer at Trump voters for being “stupid enough to vote for him”. But realistically, what else could they do? Trump was saying he would stop illegal immigration and immigration from incompatible cultures, stop getting into pointless wars, move away from free trade agreements etc. Hillary said the exact opposite. If people wanted to see these policies implemented then obviously they’re going to vote for the person who said that they’ll do them, not the one who said they won’t. Sneering at disillusioned Trump voters for doing a U-Turn is basically victim-blaming. They had no way of knowing that he would betray them, but they did know for certain that Hillary would implement policies they didn’t want (well unless she too was to do a U-Turn, but that of course would have necessitated a betrayal of HER voters), so unless his supporters had psychic powers of some kind, and could see the future, they aren’t to blame. The democratic system, which allows people to lie their way into power with fake promises, and then doesn’t hold them to account when they break these promises is to blame.
However, it is France specifically that I want to draw my attention to. Yesterday, they had their presidential election. For the past few years they’ve been led by Francois Hollande, a “leader” so pathetic that by the end of his run, he literally only had a 4% approval rate. During his presidency, they’ve had terrorist attacks occur every few months (and that’s not even counting the many attempted ones that were successfully prevented before-hand), and they’ve had near constant riots in Paris, orchestrated primarily by people of Middle Eastern and African descent.
So you would think the French would be pretty angry about what has been happening, and indeed they sure seem to be. You would also think that after the failures of both Sarkozy and Hollande, that they would want someone different from the usual political establishment. In the end, they were left with two possible candidates to choose from. They could go with either Marine Le Pen, the candidate who seemed to want to put an end to the these problems, by giving the French people a referendum on EU membership, and putting an end to mass immigration (which of course, makes her a racist). Or they could go with Emmanuel Macron… a man who worked as an investment banker for a Rothschild bank no less (even his Wikipedia page openly mentions this), a man who seems to have a vast history of corruption, a man who supports the Islamisation of Europe, a man who has an offshore bank account to facilitate tax evasion, and a man who said this…
… about his own country. Just on the surface, the idea of saying that there is no such thing as French culture, sounds laughable, because we all have a natural vision of what symbolises France and “French” in our minds. However, it’s a lot more sinister than it sounds. As I’ve mentioned before, under the UN’s own definition, what is happening in Europe right now, fits the criteria of genocide.
By making the claim that French culture doesn’t even exist, then technically speaking there is no French culture to protect and preserve. How can he be accused of destroying French culture and by extension, the French people, if there is no such thing? This is essentially how a genocide begins. The first step is to dehumanise the target. In the case of a concept like culture, the first step is to deny it even exists. Then when that is done, you undermine and eliminate it. It’s no big deal of course, because you’re just undermining and eliminating something that doesn’t even exist.
I was hoping that the French people would be able to see what’s going on and vote for Le Pen. Just to be clear, I doubt Le Pen would have actually done anything that she promised. This is democracy after all. Most likely, if she had gotten into power, she would have ended up going back on her promises, just like Trump did. However, having her in power would have served two purposes. One, it would serve as a symbol that the people are fed up with globalisation and the disastrous consequences of multiculturalism, which could have energised even more people to stand up against it. Two, when she inevitably did a U-Turn, it would have served as yet another example of what a sham democracy really is, and brought us closer to having people wake up to the fact that it doesn’t really exist. By not voting for Le Pen, they’ve basically said that they’re ok with constant terrorism (which Macron admits will be a part of their daily lives for years to come), and when he does inevitably fuck up, there will still be people buying into the idea that electoral politics could have still solved the problems facing us, “if only we had voted for Le Pen when we had the chance”.
The fact is, democracy is ridiculous. Nobody seems to get what they really want. I can’t think of any examples of a democratic society in which a large majority of the people actually approve of their leader, beyond the short time after the initial victory, because they always let the people down eventually. Even a leader who was supposedly very popular like Obama, had approval rates that tended to fluctuate within the 40s and 50s percent range for most of his time in office. As I already mentioned, Francois Hollande had a 4% approval rating in the end. Justin Trudeau’s party in Canada are currently on around a 36% approval rate. Angela Merkel is still somehow the most popular leader in Germany, but even she has seen her approval decline to just 43%, which of course means that 57% don’t approve of her.
Then on the other hand I look at the leaders that the west demonises, the so called “dictators” and “undemocratic” leaders. Vladimir Putin has an approval rate of about 86%, and this is even after Russia has had its economy devastated by Western sanctions. The Russian people don’t care about the economic hardship they’re experiencing. If anything, because they know the west are responsible, it just causes them to support him even more. Assad, a man who the West claim is a brutal dictator who kills his own citizens for no reason, won a contested election in 2014, with 88.7% of the vote, and there is no indication that his popularity is declining. Duterte in the Philippines, a man who has essentially made murder legal (as long as you claim that the person you killed was a drug dealer or addict), enjoys an approval rating of 83%, down from the 91% he once enjoyed, but still far higher than any Western leader.
So when you really think about that, how insane does it all sound? Here in the West, where we have democracy and electoral politics, we don’t approve of our leaders. Meanwhile, in countries that the West condemns for their alleged lack of democracy, the leaders enjoy far more popularity than any Western leader that you can think of. The difference of course is that in these countries, the leaders actually represent the will of their people. In the west, where we’re supposedly free to choose the leaders that we want to represent us, they don’t represent us at all. Having our will represented is what we really want.
So if that’s the case, then what is the point of democracy? Yes, in theory I like the idea of being able to choose who will lead my country, but if they don’t implement policies that I support, then in practice, it’s useless anyway. We may as well just have a dictator in power. On the other hand, if we were to be represented by a strong decisive leader, who does implement the will of the people, then it really wouldn’t matter if I chose him or not. All that would matter to me is that he’s implementing policies that I approve of.
And that’s the point I want to end on. Does democracy really matter? If the choice is between an elected leader who doesn’t implement the policies that I want, and an unelected leader who does implement them, then the better choice seems obvious to me.
I can’t defend this action whatsoever. As I’ve said numerous times already, one of the main reasons I supported Trump, was because of his promise to not escalate things in the Middle East. As far as I’m concerned, he just broke that promise.
I’m deathly afraid that seeing as Assad is such a close ally of Russia’s that this could force Russia’s hand and cause them to retaliate. I do not want to see a confrontation break out between Russia and America, because that conflict has the potential to destroy us all. I also think this will have the potential to make the migrant crisis, currently destroying Europe, even worse than it already is. It certainly doesn’t help in any way. I’m disgusted with the media and political establishment for promoting this agenda, and I’m furious with Trump for falling for it.
This is not going to be a happy post. The truth is, I’m very worried right now. Remember about a week ago, I wrote a post about how America was no longer calling for Assad to be removed from power in Syria? I felt very good at the time, because I believed that doing this would eliminate any possibility of a conflict developing in the region between America and Russia. Such a conflict, I feel, could have potentially escalated to the point of war between the two. If that was to happen, it would in fact be the beginning of World War 3. That is not an exaggeration. That’s why I was so relieved to see Trump agree to allow Assad to keep power.
Then this had to happen:
So as soon as Trump agrees to back off on Assad, a chemical weapon attack happens, and innocent civilians, including children are effected. From a logical stand point, it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do this. With the help of his Russian allies, he’s already winning the civil war, and is rapidly approaching a total victory. There’s no logical reason for him to start committing war crimes all of a sudden, and provoking a response from the United States, after they have agreed to leave him alone. Such an action could only be undertaken by an idiot or a madman, and anyone who has actually taken the time to listen to Assad speak, will know that he is neither. Nevertheless, the media and Western shill politicians instantly jumped to the conclusion that Assad and his regime were to blame, without even waiting for an investigation to be conducted first.
Some informative comments from the video above.
A British journalist in Syria offers this suggestion as to what actually happened:
According to him, what actually happened was that the terrorists (who America had been backing against Assad, before Trump came to power) had a factory that they were using to develop chemical weapons. The Syrian air force destroyed this factory, possibly without any knowledge of what was really being developed there, and this caused chemicals to leak out and harm civilians. In contrast to what the Western media is saying, it wasn’t a deliberate chemical attack from the Assad regime on his own people.
Unfortunately, Trump seems to be buying into the lies:
Some informative comments from the video above.
I just want to make it quite clear that this war is a red line issue for me with Trump. One of the main reasons I supported him at all, was because of his insistence on ending the wars in the Middle East, and his desire to forge a better relationship with Russia, unlike Hillary who was literally campaigning on shooting down Russian planes, operating in Syria. If Trump goes back on those promises, and ends up starting a war over this, I’m done with him. I will renounce my support for him, that’s how serious this issue is to me. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail here, and he’ll do the right thing. I really really hope that he does.
I knew it was going to be true. This is how Trump always works. He deliberately makes an outrageous sounding statement that on the surface, makes him sound like a liar, or an idiot. The media goes into a frenzy, tripping over themselves to mock him for it. Then a few days or weeks later, he’s proven correct, and in the process, he causes the media to expose themselves as the liars that they are. And they keep falling into the trap every single time. They don’t call him the master of 4D chess for no reason, you know.
The latest in the fast-moving story about Susan Rice’s alleged unmasking of several aides to President Donald Trump’s campaign is that the data request was for “detailed spreadsheets” of intercepted telephone calls.
Funny how in this situation, it’s only “alleged”, but in the case of Russia supposedly hacking the election, and Trump cooperating with them when they did it, it’s always reported as a confirmed fact, even though there is no actual evidence to support it.
Unlike the Russia hacking story, there actually is evidence to support this wiretapping story, yet this is only “alleged” to be true apparently. That’s the mainstream media for you. They don’t exist to keep people informed about what’s going on. They exist to manipulate the masses to think a certain way.
A former U.S. attorney named Joseph diiGenova told the Daily Caller: “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals.”
That’s quite a bit different than data on Trump being mistakenly swept into a intelligence operation.
They were obviously just looking for dirt to use against him in the election.
“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said, to the news outlet. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
The question is, will anyone face prison time for doing this?
The Daily Caller and Breitbart reported confirmation of diGenova’s comments from “other official sources with direct knowledge.”
And one more tidbit: These spreadsheets were allegedly requested by Rice a year before the 2016 presidential election.
Like I said, just looking for dirt on him. There was no way they could have possibly been investigating a suspected Russian hacking of the election, a year before the election even happened, and before Trump was even the Republican nominee. As I’ve said before, the political establishment were out to destroy Trump right from the beginning. They were probably hoping to find some dirt they could use against him early on, to stop him from even getting the nomination in the first place, that’s how threatened they were by him.
Meanwhile, Fox News has been reporting the unmasked names of Trump’s aides were turned over to officials within the National Security Council and the Department of Defense, as well as to James Clapper, then-President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, and to John Brennan, CIA director under Obama.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser under Obama — just a slot behind Rice — was also named by Fox News as participating in the alleged White House-fueled data collection operation.
But somehow we’re supposed to believe that Obama himself was unaware of what his underlings were up to. They’re going to be the ones thrown under the bus for this, in his place.
No wonder Obama’s been largely silent on the whole Trump Tower wiretapping matter.
Doesn’t want to be on record denying his involvement, and then being caught out later and exposed as a liar as well. If he doesn’t deny it, he isn’t technically a liar.
Anyway, from looking at this story, here’s my theory on how this relates to the Russian hacker narrative. The Democrats committed a blatant abuse of power by collecting information on Trump and his people illegally, with the intention of using any information they found, against him. They did this with the full understanding that they’d get away with it, because Hillary was going to win the election and would cover it all up anyway. Unfortunately for them, they found nothing substantial that they could use against him. When Hillary lost, they panicked, because they knew Trump would now have access to all the files and intel related to the spying against him.
To protect themselves, they then made up an idiotic conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the election (with no supporting evidence whatsoever), and that Trump cooperated with them. This served two purposes. The first purpose, was to distract people from the real corruption that was going on, on their side. The second, was to give them a plausible justification for their spying, once it was inevitably exposed to the public. They could claim that Trump was suspected of engaging in illegal activities with the Russians to hack the election, and that they were really spying on the Russians, in order to protect the integrity of their democracy. Then they claim that any information found on Trump was “incidental” from when they were spying on Russia.
I hope people can see through this nonsense by now. My only worry is that people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump, that they won’t give a damn about this corrupt and illegal act, just because he was the victim. The psychological phenomenon that led to witch hunts 400 years ago, still exists in people today. I think a lot of people today, would rather see Trump go down for this Russian hacker thing, even though it’s clearly false, rather than see true justice served, and for those involved in spying on him, and inventing the Russian story, from getting their just desserts.
Fantastic news. It seems that under Trump, America has finally come to its senses in regards to Syria, and now realises, that getting rid of Assad, probably isn’t the best idea. In case you’re wondering as to why I think it’s a good thing to support keeping Assad in power, please read these two previouspost of mine.
The US diplomatic policy on Syria is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president Bashar al-Assad leave power, the US ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on his fate.
This is the logical decision. I’m not saying that Assad is necessarily a saint himself, but the only alternative to him, was allowing the country to be overrun and conquered by ISIS, Al-Nusra, and other jihadist groups. Despite the propaganda in the western media, there is no evidence that any viable “moderate opposition” to Assad even exists.
The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Mr Assad must step down. “You pick and choose your battles and when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out,” US Ambassador Nikki Haley told reporters.
Isn’t it funny, how the West always talks about how much they respect “democracy”, yet when a leader they don’t approve of is democratically elected, he has to go? It’s even worse, when you also consider the fact that Russia is backing Assad. They’re willing to risk a confrontation with Russia, all to get rid of a leader they don’t approve of.
“Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes. Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No. What we are going to focus on is putting the pressure in there so that we can start to make a change in Syria.”
A good change would be to stop supporting the terrorists that are trying to destroy the country.
The Obama administration, in its later years, was focused on reaching a deal with Russia that would eventually see Assad go, though it also shifted its focus to the fight against Isil, who captured swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria in 2014.
As presidential nominee, Donald Trump said defeating Isil was a higher priority than persuading Mr Assad to step down.
There it is, stated outright, that getting rid of Assad, was a higher priority to them than stopping ISIS, before Trump took over. Does any normal person (even those who don’t approve of Assad) honestly believe that ISIS is the lesser of two evils? You can be sure as well that if Hillary had won the election, she would be continuing Obama’s policies right now, even going as far as setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, possibly shooting down Russian planes in the process, and therefore starting World War 3 with Russia.
But who cares about that, right? Sure, a third world war would be bad, but at least she doesn’t say mean words, make jokes about grabbing pussy, or enforce basic immigration laws, like that monster, Trump.
“We can’t necessarily focus on Assad the way that the previous administration did,” said Ms Haley. “Our priority is to really look at how do we get things done, who do we need to work with to really make a difference for the people in Syria.”
I approve of this.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Hawaii indefinitely extended an order blocking enforcement of Mr Trump’s revised ban on travel to the US from six predominantly Muslim countries.
US District Judge Derrick Watson turned an earlier temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the state of Hawaii challenging Mr Trump’s travel directive as unconstitutional religious discrimination.
And this piece of shit judge is an idiot. Besides the fact that the US constitution only applies to US citizens (so it doesn’t matter if the ban discriminates against the religion of prospective immigrants, because, the US constitution doesn’t apply to them), the law is entirely on Trump’s side. In fact, it can be read right here.
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. “
^I don’t think it could be any clearer than that. This judge is just playing politics and is only wasting time. It’s inevitable that after it’s appealed, that a higher court, such as the Supreme Court (assuming it has a judge that interprets the law fairly) will overturn it. In the mean time, because of this judge, while we’re waiting for this to happen, potential terrorists, who would have been banned, will get into the country, and anybody who is killed by them, their blood will be on his hands.
Anyway, no point focusing on that. I’m just glad to know that America is finally going to do the right thing in regards to Syria. Not only will this be good in the sense of fostering a better relationship between Russia and America, but if the war is brought to its end, it takes away the justification for the current ongoing migrant crisis in Europe. I don’t expect migration to stop of course (because the war was only a convenient excuse to justify it), but when it keeps on happening after the war is over, and when migrants already in Europe aren’t getting sent back, it might wake up more people as to what is actually going on.
I remember there was a time not too long ago (before Trump announced his presidential candidacy really), when George W. Bush was widely reviled as possibly the worst president in American history, and was pretty much regarded as a laughing stock the world over, for his perceived idiocy. However, times have changed, and now Trump is public enemy number one. He’s the kind of figure who is so hated that even a complete cretin like Bush is able to score brownie points off of criticising him. Seeing this happen kind of reminds me of this scene from a Batman/Captain America comic crossover. The Joker (one of the most ruthless and sadistic villains in the genre) is so disgusted when he realises that the Red Skull is a Nazi, that he suddenly starts acting virtuous in comparison.
Former president George W. Bush described the current atmosphere in the country in dark terms, though he insisted that the current climate is not unprecedented in America’s history.
Yeah I would say things were probably a whole lot worse in late 2008 or so, after he crashed the economy and caused the worst recession in 80 years, or when he had the country gripped in a state of perpetual and unnecessary war.
Yes, think of all the hurt feelings that might have been felt. What kind of a monster would say mean, hurtful things about others? Of course, it’s not as if the other side has taken the moral highground here, what with the speculation in the media that Trump’s youngest son Barron is autistic, or the mockery directed towards his wife, our beautiful Empress, for her English language skills.
Recently, the former president has been speaking out about the political climate in Washington, carefully lodging his objections to some of President Trump’s key policy objectives and rhetoric. The latest installment comes in People this week, as Bush is on a media tour to promote his book of portraits highlighting wounded veterans.
There we go. He’s probably just speaking out against Trump in order to drum up attention for his book. I doubt a psychopathic piece of shit like Bush honestly gives a damn about the hurt feelings of any minority that Trump might have said things about.
He made a clear distinction between his objection to meddling in the affairs of his successors and speaking out on subjects that affect his post-presidential Bush Center.
“When President Obama got elected, friends would call: ‘You must speak out! You must do this, you must do that.’ Turns out, other people are doing the same thing this time,” Bush said. “I didn’t feel like speaking out before because I didn’t want to complicate the job and I’m not going to this time. However, at the Bush Center we are speaking up.”
The reason he didn’t speak out against Obama, wasn’t because of some sense of decency on his part. He didn’t speak out, because the Republican and Democratic establishment are just two sides of the same coin. They’ll pretend to be different in order to give the ordinary American people the illusion of choice, but when it really comes down to it on the important issues, they’re basically identical. Trump on the other hand, for better or worse, is not a member of that political establishment, and is pursuing policies that are counter to their interests. That’s the real reason why Bush will speak out against Trump, but not against Obama, who was supposedly the leader of the enemy party.
That’s because the Bush Center does work — naturalization ceremonies and Texas-based leadership training for Muslim women — that brushes up against some of Trump’s most controversial proposals.
On Monday, in an interview with NBC’s “Today” show, Bush was asked specifically about Trump’s policies and offered a muted critique of the current president’s approach to talking about terrorism, his plans to ban immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, and his denunciation of the press.
Countries which the Obama administration singled out as being potential terrorist hotspots by the way. The ban is also only temporary (with Syria being the one exception and having an “indefinite” length of time for its ban). Meanwhile, the countries with the largest Muslim populations on the planet such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc., aren’t banned at all.
“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy,” Bush said, when asked about Trump calling the media the “enemy of the people.” “We need an independent media to hold people like me to account.”
There’s still plenty of independent media out there, and even the ones that Trump has called out such as CNN, CBS, the New York Times, the Huffington Post etc., are still free to operate just fine. All he’s doing is calling them out on their lies, or their manipulation of narratives to suit an agenda. It’s not as if he’s rounding journalists up and putting them in prison, for saying things he doesn’t like.
Calling for peace you say? Well it might look that way when you cut the footage off just before she tells them to go riot in the suburbs instead, where all white people live.
Or how about this video that Mark Dice made about the time those four black thugs, kidnapped a mentally disabled white guy and tortured him? CBS Radio reported it in such a way to make it sound like it was actually four white Donald Trump supporters who kidnapped and tortured a black guy instead.
According to People, Bush called the current political climate “pretty nasty” but maintained that he is optimistic about the country’s future.
“I’m optimistic about where we’ll end up,” Bush said. “We’ve been through these periods before and we’ve always had a way to come out of it. I’m more optimistic than some.”
Now I want to make something quite clear. I don’t believe for a second that Trump should be above criticism or scrutiny. In a democratic and free society, it’s important that people have the freedom to speak out and keep their elected representatives under pressure to implement the will of the people they are supposed to serve. While I do agree with Trump on quite a lot of issues, I don’t believe he deserves blind adoration.
However I do have to take exception to George W. Bush of all people, having the audacity to speak out against any alleged “racism” on Trump’s part. This is a man who launched not one, but two, highly destructive and unnecessary wars that resulted in the deaths of who knows how many, innocent Muslims. All deaths that could and should have been avoided. If Muslims weren’t radicalised already to hate America, they were sure given proper justification to do so, as a result of Bush’s evil foreign policies. Trump on the other hand has simply recognised the fact that a large number of Muslims hold views that are incompatible with America’s way of life (and the statistics availableprove this), and wants to put a stop to Muslim immigration to the US (which he is perfectly entitled to do under US law).
So who exactly is worse? The man who started unnecessary (and illegal) wars that resulted in the deaths of huge numbers of people of a certain demographic? Or, the man who wants to stop immigration from people of this demographic, which is perfectly in line with the laws of his country, and is only being done to protect his own citizens, arguably, from the backlash caused by those aforementioned wars?
I want you to cast your mind back to about a year and a half ago. It was at that time, that the world was introduced to one of the most iconic photos of recent years. I am of course referring to…
When this image hit, there was outrage all across the Western world. Suddenly, social media was flooded with people who had probably never even heard of Syria (let alone, the war that had been taking place there for about four years at that point), virtue signalling about how we needed to open up our borders and allow infinity people into our countries to live among us, so that something like this would never happen again. It didn’t seem to matter to these people that the child and his family were already safe and settled in Turkey, and the only reason they got on the boat in the first place, was because his father wanted to come to Europe to get dental work done, thus putting the child in this dangerous situation unnecessarily. No, we can’t blame the child’s selfish father for his death. It’s all Europe’s fault for having the audacity to control our borders, and not allowing infinity people to flood and overrun us from perfectly safe countries.
The dental work story was confirmed by the child’s aunt, in an interview with Sky News, as we can see in this video here.
Anyway, the Aunt made a media appearance again recently, and she had some pretty interesting comments to make, comments which more or less line up with things that I’ve already been saying.
The Western countries have done nothing to resolve the Syrian crisis, pursuing their false narrative instead, while the real situation in Syria stays underreported, the aunt of a Syrian refugee toddler who drowned in 2015 on his way to Europe told RT.
But…but… that’s impossible. The Western mainstream media is a bastion of integrity. Well except for all those lies they always seem to tell, such as the ones listed in this video for example.
“Our country is being destroyed by outsiders,” said Tima Kurdi – a Syrian-born Canadian lawyer and the aunt of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian boy who died in September 2015 en route to the Greek island of Kos from Turkey – adding that “Western countries are not doing anything” about that.
She said the death of her nephew became “a wake-up call to the world, a message from God, who told us [that] enough is enough,” adding that the Syrian people “were suffering for four years [at that time] and Syria was crying out to the world for help but nobody was hearing” to these pleas, as “there was not enough media coverage until” the picture of the body of her nephew washed ashore in Turkish resort city of Bodrum made global headlines.
That image prompted politicians in many Western countries to open their borders and take in refugees. However, “months later, they started to forget that image and just got back to their everyday business, but the suffering [of the Syrian people] continued,” Kurdi said.
Yeah, they opened up their borders alright. The problem though, is that they weren’t just opened to Syrians fleeing the war. They were opened up to pretty much the entirety of the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, and this has caused all kinds of chaos in Europe.
She went on to say that the West not only did “nothing to end this terrible war,” but also conducted a “terrible” regime change policy in Syria that actually only made the situation even worse. The Western funding of the so-called moderate rebels only prolongs the suffering of the Syrian people, Kurdi stressed, adding that “there are no moderate rebels in Syria.”
There was no “also” about the attempted regime change. Getting rid of Assad was the sole reason that the US and its allies, had any interest in interfering in the war. They wanted to do this because Assad is one of Iran’s closest allies in the region, and thus, one of the greatest threats to Israel.
“When [Western governments] fund the ‘moderate’ rebels, their [aid] somehow eventually ends up in the hands of the most powerful groups on the ground, which are Al-Nusra Front and Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL],” she said.
It’s just an unlucky chance occurrence that “somehow”, the weapons intended for the non-existent “moderate rebels” always seems to end up in the hands of the terrorist groups that Assad and Russia are fighting against, and which the US also claims to be against (yet won’t cooperate with Russia and the Syrian government against them).
The military solution would never work in Syria, Kurdi said, and “we will just see more suffering and more people will die.” She added that she does not take any side in this conflict and supports neither Syrian President Bashar Assad nor the opposition, but she had talked to many Syrians who live in refugee camps in Turkey, and believes that the Western media coverage of the Syrian conflict is biased.
The Western media report that “only President Bashar [Assad] kills his own people,” she said, adding that this sounds absurd to the Syrians. “I want people to understand one thing: if President Assad wants to stay in power in his country, he has to fight for his country but he would not kill his own people as he needs their support.”
But…but… he’s clearly insane. Sure, he needs their support to maintain power, but clearly, he’s just brutally murdering his own citizens, because he’s an unfeeling monster, who takes a sadistic pleasure in murdering his own people for absolutely no reason.
Also, it doesn’t seem to matter if he’s killing them, because the Syrian people are all clearly stupid, seeing as they chose to re-elect him anyway. That narrative makes perfect sense, right?
The reports in the West on Syria “do not make sense,”
as “there is more than just the [Syrian] government and Russia there, there are many rebels, who are fighting and killing my people,” she said, adding that “nobody [in the West] reports about rape” committed by the rebels and stressing that those stories are “terrible.”
If I didn’t know better, I would start thinking that maybe the West has a biased agenda here, and are trying to demonise only one side in this conflict, while ignoring the atrocities committed by the other.
Tima Kurdi admitted that Assad’s forces “did hurt the Syrian people,” but did so unintentionally. She also stressed that Syria was “peaceful and safe” before the war.
EXCEPT FOR ALL THOSE TIMES THE BRUTAL MADMAN ASSAD WOULD BARREL BOMB HIS OWN PEOPLE FOR NO REASON!!!!
“Most Syrian people were just living their lives before the war and did not get involved in any politics,” she said, adding that “all kinds of religions” co-existed peacefully in Syria. “Sunni, Shia, Druze, Alawites, Christians – we all lived together and respected each other,” Kurdi, who was born and initially lived in Damascus, told RT, adding that “most Syrian people did not want to leave their homes” when the war came.
She then addressed the issue of the refugee crisis and said that the only way to stop it is to put an end to the war in Syria.
Ideally, that would be the case, but as I’ve said before, helping the Syrian people, was never the real motivation behind this push for “refugees” to enter Europe. It was just a convenient excuse to justify it to the public. As soon as the Syrian war ends, the powers that be, will just try to find some other excuse to justify the fact that millions of people from countries other than Syria are entering Europe, allegedly to escape the Syrian civil war.
“I encourage the governments of each country to help find a political solution and [to stop violence] in my country. Bring peace to Syria so that you won’t need to see those refugees anymore,” she told RT.
I can think of one political solution that might solve this problem.
Now of course, RT is funded by the Russian government, so it’s understandable that people might be hesitant to take any information they provide at face value (if only people were equally skeptical towards the likes of CNN, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, etc.). So rather than just taking the text at face value, here’s a video of the woman actually saying these things.
The morbidly obese slob Michael Moore, famous for his series of propaganda documentaries about how terrible the institutions of Western civilisation are, has taken a break from using the capitalist model to become a multi-millionaire, all while trying to shill to us the alleged benefits of embracing full on Communism, to instead tell us about how all the women who voted for Trump only did so because of their own “internalised misogyny”. In other words, women don’t have any agency of their own and can’t be held responsible for their own decisions, in the eyes of this bloated buffoon if they vote for someone he disapproves of. Only women who voted against Trump do, and any who voted for him, only did so because they were brainwashed by the oppression they suffer from the “patriarchy”… or something like that. They’re all just “victims” of misogyny, rather than normal adults who have a different political view than him. Lets take a look at the clip.
We’ve ignored the misogyny and the sexism that is still so prevalent and ingrained, and ingrained in many of the victims, the 46% of women that voted for Trump, and the 53% of white women that voted for Trump.
It’s just incredible really how this gargantuan swine can act as if he speaks for the experiences of the millions of women who voted for Trump, and assumes they didn’t do so in their own best interests. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that maybe these women are self-confident and strong enough, not to take offence to Trump’s low-brow choices of words.
Maybe these women just support his policy on Muslim immigration, because they don’t want America to go down the same path Sweden has. Maybe they were won over by his condemnation of Mexican rapists crossing the border illegally, (something even the anti-Trump, Huffington Post admits really is happening). Maybe these female Trump voters believe that Hillary is worse for women, considering the fact that her campaign was partially financed by Saudi Arabia, arguably the country with the worst record for women’s rights on the planet. Perhaps these things matter more to these women than Trump saying “sexist things”.
I don’t know, because unlike Michael Moore, I know that I cannot speak on behalf of these women, and say for certain why they voted the way they did. But I will say that they did so, I believe, because they felt that Trump was the candidate who best represented their interests. It wasn’t because they hate themselves and all other women, no matter what Michael Moore would have us believe.