Search This Blog

Sunday, March 31, 2019

Trump Must Fire Bolton – To Save the Peace of the World

Trump Must Fire Bolton – To Save the Peace of the World

Trump Must Fire Bolton – To Save the Peace of the World

Now that US President Donald Trump has finally been cleared of the ridiculous Russia Collusion charge, his top priority should be to reduce tensions with Moscow sensibly – and the place to start doing that is to fire John Bolton, his national security adviser at once.
The case for this is urgent and the preservation of world peace will depend upon whether Trump renews his courage and acts accordingly or lets himself once more be passively manipulated along the road to new endless wars and war crimes as the previous Republican President George W. Bush was by Bolton and his neocon friends.
All the signs are that, on the contrary, Bolton – along with his lifelong close friends Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Special Envoy to Restore Democracy in Venezuela Eliot Abrams have Trump still completely in their pockets. And that they remain determined to topple the legitimate democratically elected government of Venezuela, despite the grave warnings from Moscow to stop doing so.
On March 20, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov met Abrams In Rome and flatly warned him Moscow would not tolerate any direct US military intervention in Venezuela to topple President Nicolas Maduro and replace him with America’s farcical puppet fake President Juan Guaido. As Finian Cunningham wrote in the columns of Strategic Culture Foundation, “The encounter in Rome… was described as ‘frank’ and ‘serious’ – which is diplomatic code for a blazing exchange.”
Ryabkov said after the meeting, “We assume that Washington treats our priorities seriously, our approach and warnings.”
But did Abrams honestly and accurately give his boss, the President of the United States an accurate and honest report of Ryabkov’s very serious warning?
We should seriously suspect this never happened but that, on the contrary, Abrams, and his master Bolton “protected” the man they are supposed to loyally serve from this “inconvenient truth.”
This certainly seems to be the case: For on March 27, Trump told reporters after meeting with Guaido’s wife in Washington that Russia had to get out of Venezuela, When asked how he would make Russia leave, Trump said: “We’ll see. All options are open.”
Earlier, the same day, Vice President Mike Pence, who is no fool but who has prospered mightily from often pretending to act like one, called on Russia to abandon its support for Maduro and “stand with Juan Guaido.”
It is clear, therefore, that Trump – and Pence – have not taken Ryabkov’s warning, conveyed through Abrams – if in fact he conveyed it at all – seriously for a second.
It must again be stressed: Behind Abrams stands John Bolton: The two men worked together like Siamese twins in orchestrating the bloody suppression of the Mayan peoples of Central America under President Ronald Reagan. Then, they worked overtime together to help orchestrate the invasion of Iraq in 2003 under President George W. Bush. Now they are at it again and the legitimate government of Venezuela is in their sights.
Bolton was implacable in his determination to scrap the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the United States and Russia and he continues to crush all possibilities for strategic arms control and cooperation in his fanatical and unrelenting grip. Trump has supported him enthusiastically on this at every step and shows no signs whatsoever of regret or second thought.
Bolton and Trump were obviously in full accord on recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights – a move that is certain to drive Syria and Iran closer to Moscow than ever and that can only motivate Damascus to poise new challenges for both Israel and the United States in retaliation as soon as possible.
All efforts to portray the US president as still eager to improve relations with Russia and avoid potentially catastrophic clashes with Moscow must therefore be rejected. As Sigmund Freud rightly said, often the obvious explanation is the correct one: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If Bolton looks, acts and sounds like a dangerous warmongering fanatic that is because he is a dangerous warmongering fanatic.
If Trump remains at all serious about the courageous declarations of wanting to improve ties with Russia that he made repeatedly during his 2016 presidential campaign, he should therefore celebrate his total exoneration on Russia collusion charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller by firing Bolton immediately and seeking to start a serious constructive dialogue with Moscow. No such dialogue is remotely possible while Bolton stands at Trump’s right hand, endlessly deferential to him and whispering in his ear, determined to prevent it.
Bolton must go. The security and survival of the United States and indeed of the entire human race demand it.

Russian Central Election Commission Publicly Smeared Grudinin and the CPRF

 Translated by Scott Humor, subtitled by Leo

 The Central Election Commission of Russia (CEC) refused all attempts by the Communist Party to bring a former Presidential candidate, Pavel Grudinin, into the Duma. The CEC did this by adhering to the letter of the law they themselves implemented.
The Communist Party has long been called the “Commercial Party of Russia” by the social media. And witnessing the efforts of the CPRF longtime leader Gennady Zyuganov pushing a typical oligarch Grudinin into the Duma, it is difficult to disagree with this notion.
After the CEC responded to the tenacity of the head of the “Commercial Party” with a well-reasoned denial of his candidacy, the paid activists and Runet trolls raised hell on the social networks claiming that “the authorities are afraid of Grudinin,” and that they are throwing a wrench in his, otherwise, well-oiled wheel.
Social media activists in this case are not very smart or quick-witted, otherwise they would have watched the CEC video of this very meeting. But I didn’t get lazy, so I watched it and decided to share with you a few fragments.
Here is a speech of one of the members of the Commission debating whether a person who had foreign bank accounts during the registration period can receive the mandate of a state Duma deputy.
*Clip starts*
Please, provide us… Please, provide us with a statute of the law, on the Status of a Member of the Federation Council and a Deputy of the State Duma.
Document on screen
Article 4. Early termination of the powers of a member of the Federation Council and a deputy of the State Duma
1. The powers of a member of the Federation Council and a deputy of the State Duma shall be terminated early in the following cases:
Please, pay special attention to the last sentence. “termination… upon…
B. 3) the establishment of cases involving the opening (existence) of accounts (deposits) and the storage of cash and valuables in foreign banks located outside the territory of the Russian Federation and the ownership and/or use of foreign financial instruments: with respect to a member of the Federation Council –
I underline this point…at the time of the consideration by the legislative (representative) state body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation of the member’s nomination for the conferral of the powers of a member of the Federation Council or a corresponding nomination for the position of the highest official of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.
End of document
I emphasize that the powers of a member of the State Duma or the Federation Council shall be terminated early in the following cases:
If during the period when he [Grudinin] was registered as one of the candidates for the election of deputes of the State Duma, I underline this, in the period of his registration as a candidate, it was established that his accounts weren’t closed, and had ready cash storing in foreign banks located outside of Russia. He also used other financial instruments.
Not right now, as he’s working as a deputy. But back then, when he was registering as a candidate.
I also want to remind you one phrase, with your permission I will read it: ‘We are fighting against corruption, our campaign which has been around for almost 10 years, we’re fighting against the transfer of our wealth abroad, and in this context this law is highly important. Furthermore, the Western influence on our government managerial structures has also be considered. Partially, this problem is solved by this very important law. I repeat, this law is, undoubtedly, anti-corruption measure. In addition, if our ministers, State Duma deputies have their money here, in Russian banks, it means that our economic situation is stable. But, this is also a precedent. We’re probably for the first time introducing limitations not on the ordinary citizens of Russia, not for the country as a whole, but for ourselves nevertheless,’ End quote.
I had just quoted the statement made by the member of the CPRF Anatoly Lokot. The CPRF fraction of the Duma voted for this law almost unanimously, with only one member of the fraction voting against it. This law is not about our future, but about our past. That every one our actions leaves a footprint, and if a candidate left those footprints, this law allows us to revisit them.”
*End of clip*
I can’t find a word for this beautiful performance other than “well done.” Do you imagine the humor of this situation? There is a party that has an audacity to call itself a “Communist Party.” To somehow justify this name, the party actively supports the bill to ban foreign accounts for State Duma deputies.
But here comes a moment of truth: the party registers themselves a candidate that’s an oligarch, who at the time of registration, owned bank accounts abroad. In addition, he lied publicly that he didn’t own anything. And now these “damned” CEC officials are forced to point out this fact and evidence to these so-called Communists. Showing the evidence makes it not unfounded.
*Clip starts*
Now, let’s revisit the question if there was anything in the past that prevent this candidate from becoming a deputy? Please, show the first [screenshot] slide. When the Prosecutor General office made a request to the Duma deputy to resign, we received this information, including the letter of one of those who were against appointment of Pavel Grudinin. The letter from the Prosecutor General official wasn’t directed to us, so it wasn’t a document for us to act upon. We forwarded their letter to the Federal Tax Authorities. I have to remind you that Pavel Grudinin during the period of his registration made the following statement (on the screen) to the CEC: I don’t own any foreign accounts, I don’t own any foreign properties, and in general I am pure as an angel.
Next slide, please. The CEC don’t have it’s own mechanism to investigate the potential candidates and their claims, so the CEC registered Pavel Grudinin as a candidate. After the Federal Tax Authorities conducted their own investigation, we received the following information.
Next slide, please. (8 seconds of no response.) Are you pausing it on purpose? (In the background) – Well yeah, it [computer freeze] doesn’t want to participate. It’s alright, it’ll work around itself.
We received the information about these nine foreign bank accounts… Please, continue the slide. A part of them were closed on August 19, 2016, so significantly past the time when he wrote the statement [of not having financial assets abroad], while others stayed opened till January 5, 2018. Question. Should we forget about the law that was adopted unanimously by the State Duma that any deputy violating this abroad banks law will be immediately chased away [fired] from the Duma?
Next slide, please. If we right now make a decision to allow Grudinin to receive a mandate of the Duma deputy, you would have to sack him the following day. Apart from this, it turns out that with this company [BONTRO LTD], Pavel Nikolayevich never provided any information about the company registered in Belize. (Information received from the Belize tax authorities.) Not during the time of the State Duma elections, neither when he was a candidate in the 2018 presidential election. And this company, until December 31, 2017, was 100% under his ownership. Grudinin has never filed any trust declarations with the Russian Tax Authorities. It’s possible that he still owns this company. Are we also going to pretend that it’s not there and purposely miss it?”
*End of clip*
Checkmate to a fake comrade from the “Commercial party.” No, I understand, of course, that you are used to oscillate with the general political line, which is a backbreaking even for a snake. But with Grudinin the CPRF publicly disgraced itself, when they registered this plantation owner as their candidate.
Quoting journalist Alexander Rogers, who wrote lucidly about what constitutes a so-called “Lenin Sovkhoz”:
Pavel Nikolayevich Grudinin officially owns 42.87% of shares of JSC ‘Lenin State Farm’. The Belizean offshore company BONTRO Ltd., owned by HIM, owns 99% of the shares of LLC Universal Financial Company, which owns another 20% of the shares of the state farm. Thus, Grudinin alone owns 62.87% of shares of JSC ‘Lenin State Farm’. His relatives and friends own another 36.13% of the shares. Together it is 99% of shares of the ‘state farm’. In this connection, I have a logical question: what about ‘everything for the people’ and ‘people’s enterprise’? To those very people, the ‘Communist’ Grudinin left as much as a whole 1%? The breadwinner! The benefactor! A father!”
Yes, yes. Bontro Ltd. is the same company which ownership by Grudinin was discovered by the CEC only after the tax authorities’ investigation.
And now this person who lied about even the so-called “collective farm,” and about his foreign bank accounts, fake Communists are trying to get him into the State Duma, in violation of the law they themselves supported
Who said this is the theater of absurdity? These are the realities of modern sort of-Communism. From which the Communism is a privately owned brand.
If the CEC somehow broke the law having refused to transfer of the Duma mandate to Grudinin, then let the Left instead of complaining on the Internet, to go and prove this in court. Actually, the Commission told them this openly.
*Clip starts*
The CEC works in the legal framework and not in some fantasy world. We don’t have the luxury to fantasize, because any of our decisions can be challenged in court, that’s why we are trying not make mistakes even in minor issues. If you doubt the fairness of our decision, you can go to court. The CEC for the past few years has not lost even one lawsuit. Not one.”
*End of Clip*

However, they may even decide to sue. Because they are already in such a degree of madness that any option is possible. But they will get defeated again. That is, they will simply begin to publicly smear what they have done in their pants in the situation with Grudinin on their heads.
The Communist Party of Russia has long needed to rename themselves the “Koprofazhsky Party of Russia.” As for the successors of Zyuganov, call the actor who played Pakhom in the legendary “The Green Elephant” (1999 film).

From the translator
To get an idea what kind of property is the Lenin Sovhoz in Moscow 99% owned by Grudinin and his family, watch this video. Two medieval castle looking buildings are kindergartens.
Inside 548 School. Unlike public schools in the US, schools in Russia are combined with elementary, middle and high school students studying in the same building.

How electoral fraud became the cornerstone of Ukraine’s 2019 presidential election

March 29, 2019
by Ollie Richardson for The Saker Blog
How electoral fraud became the cornerstone of Ukraine’s 2019 presidential election
Of course, it comes as no surprise that both state and independent media are currently interested in the 2019 Ukrainian presidential election, scheduled to take place on March 31st. But if we are to be honest, this interest isn’t so much caused by an eager anticipation vis-a-vis the result. After all, nothing will change much in Ukraine after the election, or rather – the IMF will continue to pick the flesh from the state’s rotten bones. Concerning the more actual reason for this interest, the March 28th episode of the RT show “World’s Apart”, hosted by Oksana Boyko, is very indicative indeed.
Here we see the least pro-“Ukrainism” politician in Ukraine, Viktor Medvedchuk (take note: I don’t use the expression “pro-Russia” for a reason – there is no actual political opposition in Ukraine) explain to the host: “Ukraine’s authorities are using their resources to bribe voters in preparation for the March 31 election! Everyone knows it, including Russia and the US!” Of course, Medvedchuk is telling the truth here – the presidential election is a competition between oligarchs, where law enforcement, Banderist militants, and the judicial system are willing to sell their services to the highest bidder. But what Medvedchuk doesn’t mention is HOW this is happening. Let’s try to address this question – briefly, but by no means exhaustedly, since this is an article and not a book – using facts.

Absolute basics of the voting system

The Ukrainian electoral process is governed by the “Law On the Presidential Election”, which stipulates that both state and private media must provide balanced coverage of candidates. In addition, the law stipulates that state media should provide free airtime and print space for all participants in the pre-election race. The actual voting process is managed by the Central Election Commission, which in turn manages the District and Precinct Election Commissions. The members of these commissions are nominated by political parties and voted on. Voter registration takes place on the basis of the centralized State Voter Register (electronic). The preliminary list of voters for the 2019 presidential election totalled 35,602,855 citizens (as of December 31st, 2018).

Internally displaced persons

As is known, the government in Kiev, in violation of international treaties ratified by Ukraine, shut down the voting stations on the territory of Russia. This means that 3,000,000 Ukrainians who currently live in Russia will not be able to participate in the presidential election on March 31st unless they travel to the Embassies of Ukraine in Georgia, Kazakhstan, or Finland. In other words, voter abstention will be quite high. Why was this done? Because Poroshenko understood that they wouldn’t vote for him and he could thus falsify the ballot and “vote” for himself on behalf of these people.
This is illegal: the right of citizens to participate in political life is enshrined in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Article 38 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which guarantees citizens the right to take part in the administration of state affairs and in nationwide and local referenda, and also to freely choose and elect state authorities and local governments.

Voter bribery schemes

The next flagrant act of electoral fraud is known in Ukraine as “webs” (concerning Poroshenko) or “pyramids” (concerning Tymoshenko). During the electoral campaign Petro Poroshenko and Yuliya Tymoshenko have exchanged mutual accusations of voter bribery, in a battle for “legitimacy” in the media space. The essence of this multi-stage scheme is that, under the guise of carrying out a “sociological survey” (more info here), voters are given financial incentives to vote for this or that candidate. The fine details are not really important and for most are probably boring, but what’s most important here is that the Interior Minister Arsen Avakov (who, before Maidan, supported the Russian world) issued an artificial public warning against the use of these schemes as a warning to Poroshenko, as if to say “I am negotiating with Tymoshenko concerning my role in any post-election government, so if you can’t trump what she is offering me, I will continue to send my ‘titushki’ to your campaign rallies” (more about this later).
In retaliation, Poroshenko used his ally Yury Lutsenko – the Prosecutor-General – to put pressure on Tymoshenko’s party by summoning its members for interrogation in the SBU. Poroshenko also suddenly started to promise to pay people their owed pensions and subsidies, as well as other financial hooks.
This is illegal: Part 6 of Article 64 of the Election Law stipulates that the conclusion of paid contracts for electoral campaigning with voters at the expense of the election fund is banned. In this case, under the guise of sociological research, hidden campaign activities are actually carried out outside the framework of the expenses of the electoral fund.

Election commission oddities

Perhaps the most shocking, yet least visible aspect of illegal electoral activity in Ukraine is the work of the District and Precinct Election Commissions. As I alluded to above, the Central Election Commission (whose members are biased in favour of Poroshenko) appoints the District Election Commissions, which in turn appoints the Precinct Election Commissions. The composition of District Election Commissions should include at least 12 members. The formation of 199 District Election Commissions did take place before the deadline established by law – February 18th. But this is where the “correctness” of the commissions’ work ends. Firstly, according to the information released by the Central Election Commission, about 65.7% of the persons nominated by political parties to work in commissions have previous experience in the election commission (in the previous presidential election it was 71%).
Secondly, members nominated by a number of election candidates worked for other candidates in the previous elections. Thus, several members of District Election Commissions who in 2014 worked for Yuliya Tymoshenko, in the elections of 2019 were submitted by the little-known candidates Nikolay Gaber and Andrey Novak – 7 and 5 people respectively; 4 out of 8 new members of District Election Commissions nominated by Roman Nasirov worked at the District Election Commissions as representatives of Petro Poroshenko in 2014; 8 members of District Election Commissions from the “UDAR” party (the “Bloc of Petro Poroshenko” was created on its foundations in 2014) represent the interests of the candidate Yuliya Litvinenko in the 2019 elections. In other words, there are a lot of fake candidates who are in cahoots with the main candidates and serve as proxies. The most vulgar example of this is the fact that a Mr Yury Tymoshenko, who evidently is a stooge of Poroshenko, was registered by the Central Election Commission (also a stooge of Poroshenko – more on this later) as a candidate for the presidency, meaning that on the ballot paper there will be the initials “Y. Tymoshenko” for Yuliya Tymoshenko and “Yu. Tymoshenko” for Yury Tymoshenko, which will confuse voters a lot, especially the elderly. This also applies to billboards, where Yury Tymoshenko also tried to troll Yuliya Tymoshenko.
Thirdly, Nazi groups who take orders from the highest bidder (either Kolomoisky, whose is behind Vladimir Zelensky and Yuliya Tymoshenko, or Poroshenko) have already come to election commissions and threatened the staff. For example, on February 21st in Dnepropetrovsk Nazis from the “C14” group came to district election commission No. 24 and obstructed its work. As a result, a significant amount of the DEC members refused to or simply did not take part in the meeting. “C14” did not allow the commission’s Chairperson to perform any actions with respect to the commission. “C14” said that the head of the commission is “pro-Russia” and has a “separatist” position. Another example: Nazis from the “National Druzhina” group – who somehow were given “observer” status by the Central Election Commission – openly threatened to use force at voting stations on election day against alleged “threats”.
Fourthly, district commissions sometimes refuse to let official election observers attend meetings, which is illegal. For example, in Kharkov a member of the commission actually confiscated the observers ID card and rudely told him to leave.
Fifthly, the members of district election commissions don’t fully understand how the electronic voting system works nor do they understand the process of including SBU officers in special working groups. In simple terms, the fact that members of the SBU – which is close to Poroshenko and harasses Tymoshenko – by law have to take part in the electoral process is worrying in itself and raises questions about the objectiveness of the election itself. The video below from Zaporozhye simply serves as proof of the district commission’s incompetence, and it’s not expected that the reader learns Russian and understands every single detail of a district election commission meeting.
Sixthly, concerning the work of precinct election commissions, the picture is no less grim. The process of forming these commissions and distributing leadership positions is riddled with problems – the main one of which is the frequent change of their composition and the absence of members at the first meeting and is caused by the record high number of candidates (39), many of which are fake proxies. Concerning the high volume of commission staff resignation and replacement (mostly due to the lack of salary), the Deputy Head of the Central Election Commission (CEC) Evgeny Radchenko stated at a press conference on March 15th that “this means that both the presidential candidates and members of commissions don’t have a very responsible approach to their duties. In fact, the number of changes we have is glaring. Our leaders have been changed 139 times in 199 territorial districts, deputies were replaced 79 times, and more than 120 secretaries were replaced. This does not allow the district election commissions to properly perform their duties”.
Another problem encountered in precinct election commissions is when the head of the DEC, before approving precinct commissions, reports that some candidates for precinct commissions put forward their candidature from two presidential election candidates at the same time, which is a violation of the law. Here is another video (Kharkov) that simply serves as proof of the incompetence of the precinct commissions – even the counting of raised hands is botched:

Billboard wars

Besides the battles during TV debates on in the media, there is also the battle of billboards. What’s most interesting here is that Poroshenko’s campaign billboards remain mostly untouched (I am not aware of any incidents where his outdoor adverts have been damaged), whilst everybody else’s are either set on fire or simply defaced. As usual, it is the Nazi groups like “C14” (pro-Poroshenko) and “National Corpus” (pro-Avakov/Kolomoisky) that are the culprits, and they even brag about it on social media. The following are merely a handful of examples:
Candidate Evgeny Murayev:
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:3d02f091e0cac8590ca1c7234de6de21_w440_h290.jpg
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:3.png
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:4.png
Anatoly Gritsenko:
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:123987.gif
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:91_main.jpg
Ilya Kiva:
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:1528190187-6076.jpg
Yuliya Tymoshenko:
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:630_360_1551373682-368.jpg
Aleksandr Vilkul:
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:1548154380_0.jpg
In this example “National Corpus” actually boast on social media about setting fire to Vilkul’s billboard:
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:52835828_577586949374130_2397756881306124288_n.png
Yury Boyko:
Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:54236881_585933661872792_5266757466955186176_o.jpg
Of course, in some cases it might look like just a minor blemish, but the fact remains that it is a crime and the police should (most of the time they don’t, election observers have to force them to come to the scene and document it) record it and find the culprit.

Poroshenko’s campaign rallies

Over the past 4 weeks Petro Poroshenko has made many visits to different regions for the purpose of carrying out pre-election campaigning. Normally the agenda for these visits consists of the following: a) participation in a Regional Development Council meeting; b) a walk to a stage prepared for his speech; c) a walk back to his transport. Details about what happens during his walks and speeches can be found here, but what is most flagrant here is the way in which he uses his position as president to carry out his electoral campaign. In addition to this, information of a promotional nature about Poroshenko’s visit is posted on the website of the respective regional state administration (here is an example from the Zhytomyr regional administration).
This is illegal: according to part 15 of article 63 of the Election Law, for candidates for the post of the President of Ukraine who hold state positions, it is forbidden to use office or production meetings for electoral campaigning; according to part 1 of article 64 of the same Law, the implementation of campaigning by representatives of executive authorities and local government, law enforcement bodies and courts, and their officials during working hours is not permitted; and according to part 20 of article 64, it is prohibited to use the premises of state and local government bodies for electoral campaigning and to place campaign materials and political advertising inside of them (part 21 of article 64).
I have also heard reports of the police preventing official election observers (Ukrainians, not foreigners) from attending Poroshenko’s pre-election rallies.
This is illegal: according to part 1 of article 157 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine entitled “Obstruction of the exercise of the right to vote or the right to participate in a referendum, as well as the work of an election commission or a referendum commission, or the activities of an official observer” stipulates criminal liability for the obstruction of the activities of an official observer in the exercise of their powers.
Of course, the US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch will never speak about these violations, nor will Washington D.C. as a whole, since doing so would further bring their tale about a “democratic, post-Maidan Ukraine” into disrepute. After the constitution was violently raped in February 2014 there is no going back now. One violation of the law must be committed in order to cover up the next one. One more debt must be taken out in order to pay off the last one. And after all, what is an election today, in 2019, in the framework of so-called “liberal democracy”? It is a competition to see who can look the most cute and fluffy in the media. The outcome is always the same though. The illusion of “independence” and “sovereignty” shatters the moment the US Embassy dismisses the “son of a bitch” Prosecutor-General.

Brazil’s Bolsonaro Arrives in ‘Israel’ for Pre-vote Visit

March 31, 2019
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro began a visit to the Zionist entity Sunday with a decision pending on fulfilling a promise to move his country’s embassy to occupied AL-Quds (Jerusalem), a policy change opposed by military officers in his cabinet.
The four-day visit by the far-right leader comes a week before the Israeli’s closely contested election in which the right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is battling a popular centrist candidate and corruption allegations, which he denies.
“I love Israel,” Bolsonaro said in Hebrew at a welcoming ceremony, with Netanyahu at his side, at Tel Aviv’s Ben-Gurion airport.
Netanyahu said he and Bolsonaro would sign “many agreements”, including security deals, and that the Brazilian leader would visit Judaism’s holy Western Wall, “in Jerusalem, our eternal capital.”
A leading Israeli financial news website, Calcalist, reported on Sunday that Brazilian state-run oil firm Petrobras was considering bidding in a new tender to explore for oil and gas offshore occupied Palestine and a final decision would be announced during Bolsonaro’s visit.
Earlier this month, a Brazilian government official told Reuters no decision had been made on the embassy move, but “something will have to be said about the embassy during the trip”.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that a formal announcement might not come during the visit.
Visiting Brazil for the Jan. 1 presidential inauguration, Netanyahu said Bolsonaro had told him that moving the Brazilian embassy in Israel to occupied Jerusalem from Tel Aviv was a matter of “when, not if”.
Source: Agencies

Saturday, March 30, 2019

Million-Person March Sets off in Gaza on Land Day.. Israeli occupation Forces Shot Dead Palestinian Youth

Saturday, 30 March 2019
GAZA – Mohammad Jihad Saad, 20, became the first casualty of the first anniversary of the March of Return protests in Gaza when he died this morning after being hit by shrapnel in the head fired by Israeli occupationn soldiers deployed on the other side of the Gaza fence with Israel, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, Wafa news agency reported.
WAFA correspondent in Gaza said Saad was hit east of Gaza City and was taken to Shifa hospital where he was declared dead.
A million-person protest set off  today marking Land Day and the first anniversary of the launch of the March of Return protests in which more than 250 Palestinians were martyred and over 10,000 injured by Israel army gunfire.
The National Committee for Breaking the Siege had called for this million-person march.
“The Great March of Return” had begun on March 30th, 2018, by thousands of Gazans demanding the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their original homeland.
According to Maan news agency, thousands of Palestinians arrived at the eastern frontiers two hours earlier than the scheduled time for protests, waving Palestinian flags and chanting slogans.
The National Committee for Breaking the Siege deployed hundreds of volunteers to help maintain the safety of protesters.
Comprehensive strike was observed across all cities and refugee camps of the Gaza Strip upon call by the committee; stores and shops closed their doors while schools and universities were suspended.
Three Palestinians injured by Israeli forces near Ramallah
In Ramallah,at least three Palestinians were injured today from rubber-coated metal bullets after Israeli soldiers attacked a nonviolent march at the northern entrance to Ramallah in the occupied West Bank commemorating the 43rd anniversary of Land Day.
Israeli soldiers fired metal rounds and teargas canisters at the protesters who gathered near an Israeli military checkpoint at the entrance to Ramallah, injuring three of them by rubber bullets and causing many cases of suffocation from gas inhalation.
WAFA correspondent said the soldiers also targeted journalists and medics in the area and showered them with tear gas.
Meanwhile, Israeli army dispersed dozens of protesters who demonstrated at Huwwara checkpoint, south of Nablus in the north of the West Bank, protesting army targeting of medical staff and ambulances while attending to the wounded during protests.
Several of the protesters sustained suffocation from gas inhalation.
Land Day An Integral Part of Palestinians’ Political Life: Iran
Meanwhile in Tehran,  Iran’s Foreign Ministry has issued a statement on the occasion of the Land Day of Palestine, saying that the day is an “integral part” of Palestinians’ political life and has played a key role in keeping alive their resistance against the occupation of the Zionist eney, Tasnim news Agency reported.
The Palestinian Land Day is an annual event to mark the killing of six Palestinians by Israeli forces during mass protests against Israel’s seizure of their land in 1976.
In late March 1976, Israeli troops killed six Palestinians, wounded 100 others and detained hundreds more who had held peaceful demonstrations against Israel’s confiscation of 21,000 dunams (5,189 acres) of their land. Palestinians, both at home and overseas, have been marking the event known as the Land Day with rallies and remembrance ever since.
Related Videos
Related News

Why is ‘Cultural Marxism’ so offensive?

Cultural M.png
Earlier this week former Brexit minister Suella Braverman referred to ‘Cultural Marxism’ in a speech. All hell broke loose immediately. The former minister was attacked by the usual Jewish and Zionist pressure groups, ranging from The Board of Deputies (BOD) to Hope not Hate to the usual compromised Labour politicians.  However, unlike our caricature of an opposition leader who grovels on demand, Mrs Braverman kept her dignity intact. She didn’t see any point to retract, apologise or promise not to repeat the phrase as the BOD demanded.
One may wonder why ‘Cultural Marxism’ is so offensive to some?
Because ‘Cultural Marxism’ is obviously truthful and precise in its capacity to encapsulate a crucial and disastrous transition in the evolvement of 20th century Left thinking.
As opposed to traditional Marxism that theorizes over the necessary condition toward social change by means of class struggle, ‘Cultural Marxism’ aims to introduce a change by cultural shift. At a certain stage some (neo) marxists and socialists were clever and honest enough to accept that the revolution wasn’t going to happen. The working class couldn’t be bothered and even if they could, they were too busy attending their jobs. The revolution had to be facilitated by different means.
Antonio Gramsci, probably the father figure of cultural Marxist thought, contended that bourgeois hegemony was reproduced in cultural life through the media, academia and religious institutions to ‘manufacture consent’ and legitimacy. The proletarian struggle for control of the means of production, according to Gramsci, could only succeed once an alternative culture replaces the bourgeois cultural hegemony. For Gramsci it was a ‘counter-hegemonic’ struggle – advancing alternatives to dominant ideas of what is normal and legitimate.
Gramsci didn’t see his desired cultural shift materialising. He died prematurelyjailed in Mussolini’s Italy. However, Gramsci’s ideas were adopted and developed by a list of thinkers including Wilhelm Reich and the Frankfurt School’s leading icons: Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm and others. As it seems, these thinkers who have had a tremendous impact on contemporary Left and progressive thinking have something in common: they were Jews of Germanic origin.
By now the picture starts to become clear. The contemporary Left is dominated by a Jewish-influenced school of thought that preaches a constant struggle against hegemonic discourses such as traditional family values, the church, the male, the ‘white’ and so on. This school of thought also advocates against elementary liberties such as freedom of speech, evidenced by the popularity of no-platforming. It is hardly a secret that the above school of thought is a complete dismissal of every conservative value and Mrs Braverman was both astute and correct in calling a spade a spade: “as Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism…”
Mrs Braverman was accused of ‘anti-Semitism,’ despite the fact that she didn’t refer to Jews. By their unwitty actions, once again, Jewish pressure groups actually admitted that ‘Cultural Marxism is indeed a Jewish-influenced school of thought, otherwise it is impossible to conceive what was anti-Semitic in Braverman’s statement.  Braverman was also blamed for repeating a ‘phrase used by mass murderer Anders Breivik,” as if referring to a term used by a mass murderer is an approval of a murderous act.
I guess that this is the right point to introduce a twist into this entire saga. It is crucial to mention that the right-wing thinkers who popularised the usage of ‘Cultural Marxism’ were actually Jewish and even ultra-Zionists. The first amongst them is Andrew Breitbart, who was dedicated to the exposing of the Neo-Marxist menace.  Not far behind him in his attack is the horrid right wing ultra-Zionist David Horowitz. It is not exactly a secret that in his manifesto Breivik refers to David Horowitz’s Freedom Centre. For those who fail to remember, Breivik also quoted Jewish writer Melanie Philips’ criticism of Neo Marxist’s attitude to immigration:   “It (immigration) was a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country (Britain). It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.” (Melanie Phillips, as quoted by mass murderer, Anders Breivik, in his manifesto).
Andrew Breitbart is the man who popularised the phrase ‘cultural marxism.’
I didn’t see Jewish pressure groups, the BOD, Hope not Hate or Labour MPs trying to silence Andrew Breitbart, David Horowitz or Melanie Philips. I guess that Jews and Zionists controlling the opposition and criticising Cultural Marxism must be a kosher adventure.
In Being in Time I argue that it isn’t totally surprising that Jews often dominate the dissent to Jewish cultural and ideological symptoms.  If choseness, for instance, is a Jewish political/cultural symptom, it may as well be possible that self-hatred and even universalism are just metaphysical antibodies. If Cultural Marxism is a Jewish-influenced school of thought, it shouldn’t take us by complete surprise that it is also Jewish writers such as Horowitz, Philips and Breitbart who bring the anti antidotes to light.

My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Heather Gray: US-Mexico Border Wall to Encourage Divisiveness, Racism in US Society

Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:40
Heather Gray: US-Mexico Border Wall to Encourage Divisiveness, Racism in US Society
Heather Gray: US-Mexico Border Wall to Encourage Divisiveness, Racism in US Society