اتّسمت المنافسة بحدِّة غير مسبوقة، هي نتاجٌ للشرخ المتعاظم بين الحزبَين (أ ف ب)
على رغم أن الموجة الحمراء العملاقة لم تبلغ مداها المنظور، فهي تمكّنت من إنزال بعض العقاب بالرئيس الأميركي، جو بايدن، وحاشيته، بعد سنتَين من رئاسة أقلّ ما يُقال فيها إنها أسوأ من سابقتها، وربّما بأضعاف. لم يُحسن بايدن شيئاً، كما لم يَحسب، ربّما، أن مَن أزاحوا خصمه، دونالد ترامب، في انتخابات 2021، قد يعيدونه، ولكن بوجوه كثيرة على شكل مشرّعين وسناتورات، سيشرف جميعهم، باسمه، على عرقلة خطط الرئيس الحاكم ومشاريعه التي لم ترَ منها أميركا شيئاً، إلّا مزيداً من التضخّم، ومزيداً من الغلاء الذي لم يَعُد، بالنسبة إلى كثيرين، محمولاً. مع هذا، طغت الولاءات الحزبية على سباق «النصفيات» الذي يُمكن عَدُّه «الأهمّ في التاريخ الأميركي» لِمَا سيترتّب عليه من انعكاسات حتى على الحزب الديموقراطي نفسه. وحتى إنْ لم يتلقَّ الأخير هزيمة نكراء في انتخابات عزّزت آمال المعسكر المقابل لسنين لاحقة، فهو يظلّ، في ميزان الربح والخسارة، مهزوماً
بيّنت النتائج الأوّلية لانتخابات التجديد النصفي، أن لا فوز كاسحاً للجمهوريين يشبه ما تأمّل به الرئيس الأميركي السابق، دونالد ترامب، وإنْ كان هؤلاء انتزعوا، وفق ما أَظهرته الأرقام الصادرة حتى مساء أمس، السيطرة على مجلس النواب من الديموقراطيين، وسط ترقُّب لمعرفة وجهة مجلس الشيوخ، الذي تشير المعطيات إلى احتمال مراوحته مربّع المناصفة، مع صوت تفضيلي لنائبة الرئيس، كامالا هاريس. وفق الأرقام أيضاً، حصل الحزب الجمهوري على 202 مقعد في «النواب»، في مقابل 184 للحزب الديموقراطي من مجموع 435 مقعداً (يحتاج أيّ حزب لتحقيق الغالبية الساحقة إلى 218 نائباً). وفيما يحتدم الصراع على مجلس الشيوخ، بلغت حصيلة مقاعد الجمهوريين 49، في مقابل 48 لحزب الرئيس، في انتظار الانتهاء من فرز الأصوات في ولايات: نيفادا، أريزونا وجورجيا (يتنافس الحزبان على 35 مقعداً من مقاعد المجلس الـ100).
وفي منافسةٍ اتّسمت بحدِّة غير مسبوقة، هي نتاجٌ للشرخ المتعاظم بين الحزبَين، بيّنت النتائج غير المكتملة أن هناك ولاءً أكبر للحزبية على حساب القضايا الرئيسة (الاقتصاد، التضخم). وظهر جليّاً، في المقابل، أن آمال الجمهوريين في «موجة حمراء عملاقة» كانت تتضاءل مع ورود النتائج تباعاً، فيما سعى الديموقراطيون الذين تركّزت أجندة سباقهم على قضيَتي الإجهاض والديموقراطية، مبتعدين عن القضايا الاقتصادية، إلى الحدّ من بعض الأضرار، في انتخابات ستكون حاسمة بالنسبة إلى مستقبل كلّ من جو بايدن ودونالد ترامب. ومع تمكُّن الديموقراطي جون فيترمان من انتزاع أهمّ مقعد متنازَع عليه في هذا الاقتراع، هو مقعد مجلس الشيوخ عن ولاية بنسلفانيا في مواجهة مرشّح يدعمه الرئيس السابق، حصل الديموقراطيون على جرعة أمل في الاحتفاظ بالسيطرة على «الشيوخ». وغذّى هذا الفوز أيضاً تكهّنات بأن المدّ المحافظ في مجلس النواب الذي وعد به ترامب، لن يبلغ توقّعاته الطموحة بالحصول على غالبية ساحقة، وهو ما أقرّ به، مثلاً، السناتور ليندسي غراهام، حين قال إن «الأمر ليس بالتأكيد مدّاً جمهوريّاً. هذا أمر مؤكد»، فيما سارع ترامب، من جهته، إلى نفْض يده من أيّ هزيمة غير متوقّعة، قائلاً: «حسناً، أعتقد أنه إذا فازوا، يجب أن أحصل على كلّ الفضل، وإذا خسروا، فلا ينبغي إلقاء اللوم عليّ على الإطلاق».
من شأن هذه الانتخابات أن ترسم ملامح العامَين المتبقّيين من ولاية الرئيس جو بايدن
وفق الأرقام غير الرسمية، أُعيد انتخاب السناتور الجمهوري راند بول عن ولاية كنتاكي، والجمهوري تيم سكوت عن كارولينا الجنوبية، وتود يانغ عن إنديانا. وفي المعسكر الجمهوري أيضاً، أُعيد انتخاب السناتور البارز ماركو روبيو عن فلوريدا، وزميله جون بوزمان عن أركنساس، والسناتور جيمس لانكفورد عن أوكلاهوما، والسناتور جون هوفن عن ولاية داكوتا الجنوبية، وفاز رون جونسون بمقعد مجلس الشيوخ عن ولاية ويسكونسن الحاسمة. من الجهة الديموقراطية، فاز المرشّح بيتر ولش بمقعد مجلس الشيوخ عن ولاية فيرمونت، والسناتور تشاك شومر عن ولاية نيويورك، كما فاز السناتور ريتشارد بلومنثال بفترة ثالثة في المجلس عن ولاية كونتيكيت. وحسم الديموقراطيون مقعد مجلس الشيوخ عن ولاية بنسلفانيا، بفوز جون فيترمان على محمد أوز، المرشّح المدعوم من ترامب، في واحدة من أكثر المنافسات حدّة في انتخابات منتصف الولاية. وللحفاظ على السيطرة على مجلس الشيوخ، يحتاج الديموقراطيون إلى الاحتفاظ بولايتَي أريزونا (مارك كيلي)، ونيفادا (كاثرين كورتيز ماستو).
بالنسبة إلى حكّام الولايات، أشارت النتائج الأولية إلى انتخاب الجمهورية سارة ساندرز، الناطقة السابقة باسم البيت الأبيض في عهد ترامب، حاكمة لولاية أركنساس. وفي الجانب الجمهوري أيضاً، أُعيد انتخاب كريس سنونو حاكماً لولاية نيوهامبشر، ومارك غوردون حاكماً لولاية وايومنغ، وكيم رينولدز حاكماً لولاية أيوا، وكذلك فيل سكوت لولاية فيرمونت، وهنري ماكماستر لولاية كارولينا الجنوبية، وانتخب الجمهوري جاي دي فانس – يدعمه ترامب – عن ولاية أوهايو، متفوّقاً على الديموقراطي تيم راين، وأُعيد انتخاب الجمهوري رون ديسانتيس حاكماً لولاية فلوريدا. وفي خطاب هجومي، عبّر النجم الصاعد في المعسكر المحافظ والمرشّح المحتمل للرئاسة الأميركية في انتخابات 2024، عن ارتياحه لجعله هذه الولاية الجنوبية التي تميل أحياناً إلى اليسار وأحياناً إلى اليمين، «أرض ميعاد» للجمهوريين، مؤكداً أن «المعركة بدأت للتو». وسطع نجم ديسانتيس (44 سنة) في أوساط اليمين الأميركي، حتى بات يُنظر إليه باعتباره منافساً محتملاً لترامب لنَيْل ترشيح الحزب الجمهوري. لكن هذا لا يعني أن المعسكر الديموقراطي لم يحقّق أيّ شيء؛ فقد انتزع من الجمهوريين المحافظين منصبَي حاكمَين: في ميريلاند وماساتشوستس، فيما أُعيد انتخاب دانييل ماككي حاكماً لرود أيلاند. وتمكّن الديموقراطيون أيضاً من الاحتفاظ بمقعد حاكم ولاية نيويورك التي تُعدّ من معاقلهم، حيث شهدت الانتخابات منافسة حادّة. وفيها، فازت الحاكمة الديموقراطية المنتهية ولايتها، كاثي هوشول، التي حلّت صيف 2021 محلّ أندرو كومو، على خصمها الجمهوري لي زيلدن، المدعوم من ترامب.
ومن شأن هذه الانتخابات التي شهدت منافسة محتدمة أشعلتْها قضايا الوضع الاقتصادي والإجهاض، أن ترسم ملامح العامَين المتبقّيين من ولاية الرئيس جو بايدن، وربّما تكون، كما وصفها الأخير، «الأهمّ في التاريخ الأميركي الحديث»، نظراً إلى انعكاساتها المحتملة على مختلف الأصعدة الداخلية والخارجية. فهي لا بدّ أن تؤدّي إلى تقليص سلطة الرئيس الحالي، على رغم كونه تجنّب هزيمة نكراء كان يخشاها حزبه. مع هذا، فإن حصول الجمهوريين على غالبية، وإنْ كانت بسيطة، في مجلس النواب، سيسمح لهم بعرقلة أولويات بايدن، ريثما يشرَعون في تحقيقات ستطاول إدارته وحتى عائلته، وقد تكون لها تأثيرات سياسية مدمّرة. فوجود مجلس نواب جمهوري، «سيوجّه ضربة كبيرة لبايدن، وسيقضي على طموحاته التشريعية، فضلاً عن أنه يُنذر بعامَين من الصراع الحزبي الطاحن»، وفق «نيويورك تايمز». ويمكن بايدن، في بلدٍ منقسم إلى حدّ التشظّي، أن يشهد شللاً برلمانياً طويلاً، ستتخلّله صراعات لا نهاية لها حول مشاريع قوانين تولد ميتة. فتحقيق الغالبية حتى بفارق ضيّق في مجلس النواب، يُعطي سلطة كبيرة في مجال الإشراف، وعد اليمين الجمهوري باستخدامها للبدء بعدد من التحقيقات ضدّ بايدن وأدائه وأوساطه. وخلال إحدى الجلسات، وعدت الجمهورية مارجوري تايلور غرين التي أعيد انتخابها في مجلس النواب، على سبيل المثال، بفتح ملفات هانتر بايدن، النجل الأصغر للرئيس. كما ستكون لدى الجمهوريين وسائل ضغط في الموازنة، ويمكن أن يلوّحوا بتهديد «الإغلاق» – شلّ الإدارات الفيدرالية – أو حتى بالتخلّف عن الدفع من قِبَل أكبر قوة عالمية.
When we look past all of the superficial Culture War battles they wage to distract the US public, we can clearly see that the two ruling-class parties share 95% of the same policies.
Pick your flavor of neocolonialism
What is the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Trump says backyard and Biden says front yard. Otherwise, they share 95% of the same warmongering, capitalist, imperialist policies.
People in Latin America often ask me, “What is the difference between Republicans and Democrats?” For those outside of the United States, the two hegemonic parties seem so similar that they’re difficult to tell apart.
The reality, of course, is that the Republican and Democratic Parties are indeed nearly identical. When we look past all of the superficial Culture War battles they wage to distract the US public, we can clearly see that the two ruling-class parties share 95% of the same policies — and are funded by the same billionaire capitalist oligarchs and exploitative mega-corporations to obediently serve their economic interests.
The Joe Biden administration has made this undeniable. The Democratic President campaigned on promises to reverse the Republican Trump’s disastrous policies, only to continue the vast majority of them.
At a press conference on January 19, the current President accidentally revealed what the real difference between him and the former head-of-state is: Trump thinks that Latin America is the US empire’s “backyard”, while Biden insists it is Washington’s “front yard”.
You can see Biden’s comments in the official transcript published at the White House: “We used to talk about, when I was a kid in college, about ‘America’s backyard,’” he said in the presser. “It’s not America’s backyard. Everything south of the Mexican border is America’s front yard.”
I repeat: “Everything south of the Mexican border is America’s front yard.”
So now, when people in Latin America ask me to describe the differences between Republicans and Democrats, I have the perfect answer: Republicans think you are their ‘backyard’, whereas Democrats think you are their ‘front yard’.
Pick your favorite flavor of neocolonialism.
Biden has been in power for exactly one year as of this January 20, and he has failed to accomplish anything significant. (His long-overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan does deserve an honorable mention, but it is greatly overshadowed by Biden’s hawkish policies against the rest of the world — not to mention the devastating sanctions his administration has imposed on Afghanistan, which are starving millions of civilians.)
Far from breaking with Trump, Biden has doubled down on the far-right former President’s worst policies:
Biden still recognizes coup puppet Juan Guaidó as fake “President” of Venezuela, and has maintained Trump’s murderous sanctions.
Not only has Biden not removed any of the hundreds of crippling sanctions that Trump imposed on Cuba; he has in fact further expanded the US economic warfare against the Caribbean nation, to such a degree that the New York Times wrote that “Biden is taking an even harder line on Cuba” than Trump.
Biden has continued the borderline genocidal, scorched-earth war on Yemen, which was expanded by Trump and started by Joe’s running mate Obama.
After Trump unilaterally tore up the Iran nuclear deal, the Biden administration has refused to return to it, demanding Tehran’s agreement to a series of unreasonable new demands.
Biden has kept US troops illegally occupying Iraq (where the democratically elected Parliament voted overwhelmingly to expel them) and Syria (where they are preventing the central government from accessing its own oil and wheat reserves as it suffers under a suffocating Western sanctions regime).
Biden has maintained the witch hunt that Trump’s Justice Department launched against WikiLeaks journalist and political prisoner Julian Assange, who is being tortured in a maximum-security British prison as he awaits extradition to the Land of the Free for a show trial.
Biden fulfilled the Trump administration’s plans to extradite — that is, kidnap — Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab, who was detained and held in horrific conditions for the supposed “crime” of circumventing illegal US sanctions to buy food for the Venezuelan people.
Biden has accelerated the new cold war on both China and Russia while imposing more and more sanctions around the globe.
Heck, Biden has even managed to deport more migrant children than the inveterate racist Trump.
Meanwhile, inside the United States, Biden’s own party has blocked all attempts at passing significant legislation.
The US government is so thoroughly undemocratic, so entirely beholden to capital, it has become a dysfunctional basket case. Its “democratic” window dressing has melted away, and all that is left is a stone-cold authoritarian regime controlled by billionaire oligarchs, a textbook dictatorship of the capitalist class.
The only thing the US empire can do is do what it has always done: escalate its imperial aggression abroad, endlessly pour money into the gaping maw of the Military-Industrial Complex, try to tame the voracious appetite of the death cult of capitalism — use war abroad to distract from the mass death, skyrocketing inequality, growing poverty, dire homelessness, police brutality, and mass incarceration inside the United States.The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
Two more police officers who responded to the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol have died by suicide, bringing to four the number of suicides by officers who guarded the building during the attack by Trump supporters.
Washington DC police Officer Gunther Hashida was found dead in his home, the District of Columbia’s police department said on Monday. He died on July 29, one week before his 44th birthday, according to his obituary.
Hashida joined the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department [MPD] in May 2003, according to media.
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed Hashida as a “hero” who “risked his life to save our Capitol, the Congressional community and our very Democracy” in a written statement.
Just hours after the MPD confirmed Hashida’s death, department spokesman Hugh Carew said in a statement that another Metropolitan Police Officer who responded to the Capitol riot, Kyle DeFreytag, was found dead on July 10.
DeFreytag’s cause of death was also suicide, Carew said. The suicide was not reported until Monday.
MPD chief Robert Contee wrote in a message to the department last month that, “I am writing to share tragic news that Officer Kyle DeFreytag of the 5th District was found deceased last evening. This is incredibly hard news for us all, and for those that knew him best.”
MPD Officer Jeffrey Smith and US Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood also committed suicide in the days after the riot.
Hundreds of former president Donald President supporters stormed the Capitol building that day to stop Congress from certifying Democratic President Joe Biden’s election win.
Four people died on the day of the violence. More than 100 police officers were injured.
A Capitol Police officer, Brian Sicknick, who had been attacked by protesters, died the following day.
The Capitol riot led to Trump’s second impeachment trial. More than 500 people have been arrested for their roles in the violence.
Last week, four police officers told a House of Representatives special committee that they were beaten, threatened, taunted with racial insults, and thought they might die as they struggled to defend the Capitol against the mob.
Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy dismissed the investigation regarding the Jan.6 Capitol attack, insisting that “Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”
Trump also described the House investigation as “a fake and highly partisan” political move.
Trump has been accused by his critics of inciting his supporters to violence by peddling what they call “the big lie”, a baseless claim that Biden won the presidency through a stolen election.
Pelosi portrayed the violence, in which rioters clashed with police and sought to hunt down lawmakers, including Pelosi, as an attempt to “overthrow” the government.
Daily Beast: The U.S. will escalate sanctions against the Russian government for hacking American government networks during the 2016 election, the Treasury Department said Thursday. But, in announcing the sanctions, the government went even further than Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe in connecting the dots between the Trump campaign and Russian intel agencies.
Of course- if you actually READ the Mueller Report you already knew this, which is why the media taking the GOP's frame of "no Trump collusion" was baffling, to say the least. https://t.co/jzUuV0cdMb
— Rachel Bitecofer 🗽💡🔭🦆 (@RachelBitecofer) April 15, 2021
oh nothing, just the U.S. Treasury Department confirming today that ***Trump's 2016 campaign chairman was a Russian Intelligence asset*** https://t.co/WarzSfCAGG
The statement outlined the pipeline as this: President Trump hired Paul Manafort to run his campaign, who then asked Rick Gates to come aboard. The pair then provided an old colleague, Konstantin Kilimnik, with internal campaign polling and strategy information. Kilimnik then handed it to Russian intelligence officials.
“The Biden administration today going farther than anyone else has gone in 4 years. essentially accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia. The announcement made by the U.S, Treasury Department in a series of sweeping sanctions…” – @NicolleDWallacepic.twitter.com/98rxI3nBaW
This? Oh, it’s nothing, just proof that the 2016 Trump Campaign coordinated, conspired, and colluded with Russian Intelligence Services https://t.co/QpW2Gh3dBo
“Additionally, Kilimnik sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” the statement said.
The Biden administration has disclosed for the first time that a Russian agent who received internal polling data from the Trump campaign in 2016 passed it along to Russia's intelligence services https://t.co/l2TonY7lsN
It took a long time to connect the dots because Kilimnik was not interviewed by Mueller, and Manafort lied about the affair, The Washington Post reports. It’s still unclear whether Trump knew about the sharing of information, and what Russia did with the information.
Konstantin Kilimnik (Kilimnik) is a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant and known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy. Additionally, Kilimnik sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
In 2018, Kilimnik was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice regarding unregistered lobbying work. Kilimnik has also sought to assist designated former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. At Yanukovych’s direction, Kilimnik sought to institute a plan that would return Yanukovych to power in Ukraine.
If today's Treasury report is correct, the man overseeing Trump's 2016 campaign shared sensitive internal info with a Russian agent, who conveyed it to Russian Intelligence Services.
The missing piece to the Trump/Russia puzzle has always been how the Russians knew where to target their efforts to help Trump. The Russians knew which voters to target because Trump told them. The Trump campaign was a joint effort by Trump and Russia to cheat to win an election.
The truth is out, and nothing is stopping Trump from being prosecuted.
VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff
Lawrence Davidson is professor of history emeritus at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.
All right! Let’s hear it for Joe Biden! Our new president is leading us in the direction of domestic sanity, and there are even hints of progressive potential in his evolving agenda. Under his leadership, we might soon master the Covid-19 plague and dig ourselves out of our near-depression economic straits. This is terrific!
Some good news when it comes to foreign policy as well. You’ll remember that in Trump’s determination to “make “American great again” (MAGA), the former president decided that international organizations and cooperation were impediments to national greatness. Thus, he systematically withdrew from a number of alignments and also scorned international law. This approach appears to have been part of a MAGA scheme to subvert international order. Its nihilistic undertones were highlighted by the creepy leaders who seemed to warm Trump’s heart. He found men such as the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, along with a long list of dictators ranging from Rodrigo Duterte in Philippines to Abdel Fattah el-Sisi inEgypt, to be really congenial. There was also Trump’s warm admiration for the Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
President Biden has saved us from this sort of delinquency. He is now operating under new and saner marching orders: “diplomacy is back” and multilateralism is in. The U.S. has recommitted to the international effort to slow down global warming and has rejoined the World Health Organization. Biden has ended all participation in the immoral Yemen civil war and, so it is reported, told the Russians to keep their invasive cyber-fingers to themselves.
At this point you might have the urge to celebrate what appears to be a full 180-degree turn from Donald Trump’s demented worldview. But hold on, that is not quite the case. Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, it appears that a residual lawlessness can be found in at least one the Biden’s foreign policies. We can recognize it in the game he is playing with Iran.
Part II—Scuttling the JCPOA
Recall that in 2015 then-President Obama invested a lot of political capital, not to mention putting forth a remarkable display of good sense, in helping to negotiate a multilateral agreement with Iran. This is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and it was multilateral because it included not just the U.S. and Iran but also the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China as well as Germany (collectively referred to as the P5+1). Basically, the agreement stated that, under a regime of international monitoring, Iran would forgo any development of nuclear weapons and convert its nuclear facilities to peacetime pursuits. In exchange, the P5+1 would lift all nuclear-related economic sanctions, freeing up tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue and the release of frozen assets. It was a rare display of effective diplomacy and it worked—until Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, unilaterally scuttled the deal.
Trump withdrew from the agreement in early May 2018. By January 2020 he had increased the number of Iran-related sanctions to over one thousand. In 2019, Trump was suggesting that if Iran wanted to enter into new negotiations with the U.S., he would consider lifting some of the sanctions. Iran refused to begin the negotiating process over again with Trump. On 15 January 2021, five days before leaving office, Trump added new sanctions. Why did he display such maliciousness? Besides a bizarre hatred for anything Obama had achieved, and the disdain for international cooperation which supposedly stood in the way of his MAGA fantasies, there are other factors. Trump is a truly amoral schemer (we might think of him as a modern-day lawless Borgia). And so he almost naturally fell in with amoral regimes with active domestic lobbies in the U.S. (such as Saudi Arabia and Israel), as well as a “pay to play” approach for the votes and donations of Americans who have a grudge against or fear of Iran. Here we can name not only the Zionists, but also the wealthy Iranians who took refuge in the U.S. after Iran’s 1979 revolution. Many of these are Iranian monarchists who want to see regime change in Iran through the return of a shah (king).
Under the circumstances, the Iranian government reaction has been understandable: they see themselves as the aggrieved party. They had negotiated the JCPOA in good faith. They had met the conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of international monitors. The other side had failed to respond as promised. Not only had the U.S. broke the agreement without cause, but it had then blackmailed its European allies into breaking their commitments under the agreement. This was done by the Trump administration declaring that any party that broke Washington’s sanctions against Iran would themselves be sanctioned.
After a year or so, Iran, noting that it was the only party paying attention to the deal and that the sanctions still applied, began to slowly back away from the nuclear agreement’s provisions. However, it was not until January 2020 that the Iranians announced they would no longer limit their number of centrifuges and thus their capacity to enrich uranium. Even then it was not the obscene number of American sanctions or the gross failure of the Europeans to abide by their promises that finally “broke the camel’s back.” It was Trump’s ordering of the murder of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on 3 January 2020—essentially an act of war, and certainly one in violation of international law.
Part III—Joe Biden, the Bad Stuff
Now Trump is gone and we have Joe Biden, who, by the way, has not done the right thing and affirmed that his administration would rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. Instead he declared that “I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy. If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations” (my emphasis). Later he said that the subsequent negotiations would involve the Islamic Republic’s “violations of human rights and Iran’s role in the regional conflicts.” On its face, this is not an invitation to return to a stabilizing status quo ante, or even a supposed “credible path back to diplomacy.” It is a take-it-or-leave-it demand. This position is remarkably similar to that of Trump posturing for new negotiations back in 2019. And since, as of 7 February 2021, Biden has refused to lift sanctions on Iran—has refused to cease driving that country into poverty—these are no longer Trump’s sanctions. Biden now owns this horror show. Here are some of Biden’s fatal steps.
It was about nine days into the new administration that Biden’s officials began to reference foreign policy and Iran. First appeared Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, who told the U.S. Institute of Peace that “a critical early priority has to be to deal with what is an escalating nuclear crisis as they [Iran] move closer and closer to having enough fissile material for a weapon.” One wonders if Sullivan got his start in advertising, because his description is a purposeful mischaracterization of the situation. The descriptor “escalating nuclear crisis” is a woeful exaggeration. If there is any “crisis” at all, it is because Washington has failed to meet its commitments under the 2015 agreement. The Iranians have repeatedly made it clear that they have no interest in nuclear weapons. And, one can imagine the only thing that could change their mind is an existential outside threat. To date, the only ones that pose such threats are allies of the U.S.: Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Then stepped up Tony Blinken, Biden’s new secretary of state, to continue the new administration’s maneuvers. To wit, Blinken stated “Tehran must resume complying with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal before Washington would do so.” This sort of statement is a rather childish, you-go-first challenge. Blinken then explained that if Iran returns to the deal, Washington would seek to build what Blinken called a “longer and stronger agreement” that would deal with other “deeply problematic” issues. He did not name these, but Biden for his part has drawn attention to Iran’s development of ballistic missiles and its support for proxy forces in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
It took the Iranians no time at all to recognize this gambit for what it is, an effort to enlarge restrictions on Iranian military capacity beyond the scope of the original 2015 agreement. Almost immediately, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, responded that the U.S. position was not practical and will not happen and then added in an op-ed in Foreign Affairs,“once a party leaves an agreement, then that party has no authority demanding others’ compliance to that agreement.”
The Iranians did come back with a more doable proposal to deal with the “who goes first” dilemma. Teheran proposed a timed, mutual U.S. and Iranian return to the original agreement. In an interview with CNN, the Iranian foreign minister said “both countries should synchronize their JCPOA-related moves under the supervision of the European Union”—in other words, achieve the goal with a step-by-step coordinated process. The Biden administration said no to Zarif’s offer, and sane minds, noting the rejection, could hear eerie Trump-like snickering in the surrounding ether.
Part IV—Conclusion
We have already asked why Trump decided to act in such a malicious manner toward Iran. Now we can ask why Joe Biden has decided to mimic his predecessor and continue a callous, hard-line approach to that same country. As it turns out, the answer is not all that different. Biden is subject to the same lobby pressure from groups to which he has a demonstrated sympathy. Among these are some of the well known suspects mentioned above, but first and foremost are Israel and its Zionist supporters (a rundown of these can be found in a full-page ad in the 5 February 2021 New York Times).
We can also add one other grouping to this list—various civil rights organizations who would use the moment to pressure Teheran to increase the level of civil liberties allowed in the country. However, as Behrooz Ghamari Tabriz, writing in Counterpunch notes, “It is a hard sell for those who are genuinely concerned with the question of human rights to ask the American government to be the agent of that change. So long as our government supports the region’s most oppressive regimes, it is hard to imagine that it has any moral authority or political capital to spend on issues of human rights in Iran.”
It is hard to know what exactly is going on inside Joe Biden’s head on this issue. We can assume that it is nothing really analytical. His administration’s actions have, so far, run counter to the other precedents he is laying down in the areas of international cooperation and leadership. They also go against logic. One can imagine no better way to move the Iranians toward nuclear weapons capability than the policies now being pursued. Until Biden acts, in terms of Iran, in the interests of achievable nuclear restraint and stability, that is in the real interests of the country he leads, rather than this or that interest group, he will carry around the residual chains of Donald Trump’s miserable legacy.
– An equation that tries to read the change in the Administration, as a transition from former President Donald Trump’s “isolationist” project that does not care about America’s relations in the world, under the American first slogan, is being debated by President Joe Biden’s project of America’s return to the world and its place among the world, and the hallmark of Trump’s withdrawal from international agreements and Biden’s return to it, particularly the climate agreement on environmental pollution, and the return to the United Nations organisations from which Trump has decided to withdraw, with the world’s health organisation at the forefront.
In fact, this image seems deceptive, with trump speaking only of America first, and Biden’s America logo coming back. It is well established that the policies of U.S. intervention in international crises did not stop with America first in the Trump era, nor will it stop with Biden, the fate of American welfare and security is already based on America’s economic, political and military standing in the world, not on what is happening within America independently of this international extension of this great nation.
– The debate in the slogan needs a different approach, the retreat toward the American interior relatively and the easing of the burden of foreign interventions, does not mean withdrawal and cannot mean withdrawal, and the evidence of what Trump did to strengthen relations with China and Russia and escalate the confrontation with Iran, and Biden’s intentions for his foreign policy dealing with the files of relations and international policies, so that America’s content first becomes viable To measure either of the policies and either of the two presidents, it is closer to treating these international files with the mentality of reducing the highest degree of escalation and getting off the tree of crisis, in search of the best possible to achieve American interests with the least degree of crisis, and so it will be easy to discover that Biden is closer than Trump by degrees to the concept of America first, even if his motto is the return of America and the Tump America first slogan.
In the region, trump, raising the slogan of America first, was fighting the escalation that followed his withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, on fronts stretching from Iraq and Syria to Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine. On Yemen to the extent that Ansar Allah is classified on the lists of terrorism in the late days of his term, and all these policies are based on the illusion of their ability to achieve policy change for the axis of resistance, first and foremost Iran, or success by dropping this axis and in the heart of Iran, and Biden comes to inherit the failure of these policies heading to switch the direction towards minimum understandings starting with the revival of the nuclear agreement with Iran and the cessation of the War of Yemen, and any scrutiny of the difference between the two policies and the two presidents, will lead to us that Trump was working in the region under the slogan ” First, and that Biden works under the banner of America first, where U.S. interests include protecting “Israel” Biden will not hesitate to protect them, but where U.S. interests call for a return to the nuclear deal with Iran Biden will do so independently of the reservations of “Israel”, and where U.S. interests call for the protection of Saudi Arabia, Biden will do so, but where U.S. interests call for an end to the War of Yemen, Biden will not hesitate to do so in isolation from Saudi accounts.
America first or “Israel” first is the fundamental difference in the region between the elements and orientations of policy making between Trump and Biden, whether Biden succeeds in sticking to the security of “Israel” and its superiority, by continuing a policy independent of Israeli pressure or bowing to pressure and modifying his policies. Negotiations in the middle of a return to the nuclear deal will remain the criterion for Biden to win his policy or fall under pressure, and to move toward this goal is done in the minefield, where Israel and Saudi Arabia muster all the papers to influence the U.S. decision to avoid this bitter cup.
يجري التداول بمعادلة تحاول قراءة التبدّل الحاصل في الإدارة الأميركية، بصفته انتقالاً من مشروع الرئيس السابق دونالد ترامب “الانعزالي” الذي لا يهتمّ بعلاقات أميركا في العالم، تحت شعار أميركا أولاً، إلى مشروع الرئيس جو بايدن القائم على عودة أميركا كما قال بايدن الى العالم والانخراط في مكانتها بين دول العالم، والعلامة الفارقة تمثلت بانسحاب ترامب من الاتفاقات الدولية وعودة بايدن إليها، خصوصاً اتفاق المناخ الخاص بتلوث البيئة، والعودة الى منظمات الأمم المتحدة التي قرر ترامب الانسحاب منها وفي طليعتها منظمة الصحة العالمية.
–
في الواقع تبدو هذه الصورة مخادعة، وليس فيها الا كلام ترامب عن شعار أميركا أولاً، وشعار بايدن أميركا تعود. فالثابت أن سياسات التدخل الأميركي في الأزمات الدولية لم تتوقف مع أميركا أولاً في عهد ترامب، ولن تتوقف مع بايدن، فمصير الرفاه والأمن الأميركيين مبنيّ أصلاً على مكانة أميركا الاقتصادية والسياسية والعسكرية في العالم، وليس على ما يحدث داخل أميركا بمعزل عن هذا الامتداد الدولي لهذه الدولة العظمى.
–
النقاش في الشعار يحتاج مقاربة مختلفة، فالانكفاء نحو الداخل الأميركي نسبياً والتخفف من عبء التدخلات الخارجية، لا يعني الانسحاب ولا يمكن أن يعني الانسحاب، والدليل ما فعله ترامب من تأزيم العلاقات مع الصين وروسيا وتصعيد المواجهة مع إيران، وما يعلنه بايدن من نيات لسياسته الخارجية التي تعنى بملفات العلاقات والسياسات الدولية، ليصير مضمون أميركا أولاً قابلاً للقياس بأي من السياستين وأي من الرئيسين، أقرب لمعاملة هذه الملفات الدولية بعقلية التخفف من أعلى درجات التصعيد والنزول عن شجرة التأزيم، بحثاً عن أفضل الممكن لتحقيق المصالح الأميركيّة بأقل درجة من الأزمات، وهكذا سيكون سهلاً اكتشاف أن بايدن أقرب من ترامب بدرجات لمفهوم أميركا أولاً، ولو كان شعاره عودة أميركا وشعار ترامب أميركا أولاً.
–
في المنطقة كان ترامب وهو يرفع شعار أميركا أولاً يخوض التصعيد الذي أعقب انسحابه من الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، على جبهات تمتد من العراق وسورية الى اليمن ولبنان وفلسطين، وكان واضحاً أنه وضع وصفات ثنائي رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو وولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان كأساس للسياسات الأميركية، فكانت عمليات التطبيع الإسرائيلية العربية، وصفقة القرن وما تلاها من دعم لقرارات الضم الإسرائيلية للأراضي العربية، وكان التصعيد في لبنان وصولاً لإسقاطه تحت الضغط وصولاً للانهيار أملاً بإسقاط المقاومة، والذهاب في تبني الحرب العدوانية على اليمن الى حد تصنيف أنصار الله على لوائح الإرهاب في أواخر أيام ولايته، وبنيت كل هذه السياسات على وهم قدرتها على تحقيق تغيير السياسات لمحور المقاومة وفي مقدّمته إيران، أو النجاح بإسقاط هذا المحور وفي قلبه إيران، ويأتي بايدن ليرث فشل هذه السياسات متجهاً لتبديل الوجهة نحو تفاهمات الحد الأدنى بدءاً من إحياء الاتفاق النووي مع إيران ووقف حرب اليمن، وأي تدقيق بالفارق بين السياستين والرئيسين، سيوصلنا إلى أن ترامب كان يعمل في المنطقة تحت شعار “إسرائيل” أولاً، وأن بايدن يعمل تحت شعار أميركا أولاً، فحيث المصالح الأميركية تتضمن حماية “إسرائيل” لن يتوانى بايدن عن حمايتها، لكن حيث المصالح الأميركية تستدعي العودة للاتفاق النووي مع إيران سيفعل بايدن ذلك بمعزل عن تحفظات “إسرائيل”، وحيث المصالح الأميركية تستدعي حماية السعودية سيفعل بايدن ذلك، لكن حيث المصالح الأميركية تستدعي وقف حرب اليمن لن يتردّد بايدن بفعل ذلك بمعزل عن الحسابات السعودية.
–
أميركا أولاً أم “إسرائيل” أولاً هو الفارق الجوهري في المنطقة بين عناصر وموجهات صناعة السياسة بين ترامب وبايدن، سواء نجح بايدن المتمسك بأمن “إسرائيل” وتفوقها، بمواصلة سياسة مستقلة عن الضغوط الإسرائيلية أم رضخ للضغوط وقام بتعديل سياساته. فالمفاوضات بالواسطة للعودة الى الاتفاق النووي ستبقى هي المعيار لفوز بايدن بسياسته ام سقوطه تحت الضغوط، والسير نحو هذا الهدف يتم في حقل الغام، حيث تحشد “إسرائيل” والسعودية كل أوراق التأثير على القرار الأميركي لتفادي هذه الكأس المرة
Biden Election May Be Illegal, as Four Basic Legal Principles Ignored
1, The People’s Right to Fair Elections.
2, The Law and the State Cannot Condone Fraud. 3, Civil vs. Criminal law.
4, Checks and Balances, Due Process.
5, Difficulties and Solutions. General Discussion. Highlights Discussion. Conclusions and Proposals. Pence’s Letter.
by Citizens Against Fraudulent Elections, 2020-21
Highlights
1. The Right to Fair Elections.
– The People have an inalienable right to a fair and true election, and this right overrides legal formalities.
– If this right is denied them in the first instance, they have the right to demand it in a repeat election.
– Scientific certainty is based on repeatable results, not on opinion and hearsay back and forth.
– Runoffs with anti-fraud safeguards are the only clear way to eliminate fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
– Allegations of major irregularities and counter-arguments are conjectures without conclusive proof either way.
– A disputed election, resolved by a runoff, is similar to a mistrial, which is remedied by a retrial.
– The decisions on January 6th to certify doubtful results are likewise to be viewed as mistakes to be corrected.
– When a thing is broken, the remedy is to fix it, not just discuss it or let it be.
– The Trump campaign should have done more to emphasize the need for repeat elections, to show their good faith, confidence in the mandate of the people, and support for citizen democracy.
– Runoff elections are the only constitutionally valid solution; see 4, Checks and Balances below.
2, It is an impossibility for the law, and an offense for an individual or an institution, to condone fraud.
– Neither civil nor criminal law may give protection for crimes, such as fraud.
– Every citizen who has knowledge of crimes has the right and the duty to expose and oppose them.
– By assenting to or facilitating fraud, one becomes an accomplice thereto.
– Vice President Pence clearly stated to Congress his concerns about irregularities, illegalities and integrity of the election.
– Yet he then gave the election into the hands of Congress, which is controlled by the party suspected of fraud.
– Thus — if there was indeed fraud — Pence knowingly facilitated its completion.
– This self-contradiction cannot have the color of law.
– His proper course was an estoppel — to refuse to move forward until the disputed electoral results were cleared, and brought from the realm of suspected criminal matters to bona fide civil ones.
3, The Distinction between Civil and Criminal Law.
– A fraudulent matter must first be made whole before it can be the subject of the normal civil procedure.
– Civil laws apply to bona fide matters. Crimes such as fraud fall outside this scope.
– Civil laws, such as the Constitution, are not expected to specify procedures for criminal matters, much as in a contract for payment for goods in cash, it is understood that the notes may not be counterfeit.
– The Supreme Court improperly dismissed the fraud complaint by the State of Texas; standing is a principle in civil matters, while fraud is a criminal matter which it is everyone’s duty to report. By its dismissal, the Court failed in its fundamental duty to oppose fraud on a constitutional scale.
4, Checks and Balances, Due Process
– The two-party system has no place in the Constitution; “faction” was seen as a great evil by the Framers.
– Because of the party system, the Constitutional rules for handling objections to electoral votes tend to result in a violation of due process:
– The decision to accept the vote was given to the Democratic party that controls Congress, while it was also the object of the fraud allegations – making it judge, jury and defendant all in one.
– With the Republicans as plaintiffs and the Democrats as defendants, Congress was cast in the multiple roles of plaintiff, defendant, judge and jury, and could not justly be an arbiter for the people. It had to recuse itself.
– Such gross violations of due process are the antithesis of the Constitutional principle of checks and balances, and cannot be the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
– Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This certainly includes the people’s right to due process and fair elections!
– Moreover, as noted in (2), no law can be legitimately applied to facilitate fraud. The written law cannot override natural law, nor be applied in contradiction to the intent of the law, nor to perpetrate an injustice.
– Congressional approval of the electoral results on January 6th was invalidated by these violations of due process and of Constitutional checks and balances.
– For VP Pence to reject the disputed votes and throw the election to the 12th Amendment would have also been invalid, by making the Republicans both plaintiff and judge.
– The appointment of the President of the Senate (the Vice President) to count the electoral college votes is not a mere formality, but is a check or brake against fraud. To count or to halt the count is essential to his function. To hold the count in abeyance pending verification is his legitimate duty.
– If it is argued that the Vice President of the Senate should have little power, then should he have the power to allow a violation of due process?
– In a fraudulent or disputed election, the system breaks down at the state and county level, yet this threatens the integrity of the highest federal office, the Presidency. The party system is embedded at all levels.
– The 12th Amendment provides a check against a faction within individual states overriding the will of the majority of states.
5, Difficulties to Overcome and Possible Solutions.
– Fraud Allegations Far in Excess of the Reported Margin of Victory
– Practical and Political Difficulties of Post-election Forensics: Where are the Impartial Experts and Judges?
– The Evils of Faction: Partisanship at all Levels of Government, and in the Media
– Powers of the Supreme Court: SCOTUS Frequently Rules on State Electoral Procedures
– Mandate Hand Ballot Runoffs in Districts with Improbably High Voter Participation before Proceeding to Statewide Runoffs.
– Looking Ahead: Self Auditing Tallies, an Effective Remedy against Electoral Fraud
General Discussion
When there are serious allegations of fraud, there need to be repeat elections, and until then, there is a duty not to certify doubtful results.
Efforts to question the count in court were inconclusive, and could be viewed as an end-run. It needed to go back to the people first.
The 12th Amendment provides for checks and balances between the power of the States and of Congress in selecting the President.
It’s an awful feeling for a team to lose. It’s also a time to review what mistakes were made.
What the Republicans had to do starting in November was to campaign strongly for a rerun of the presidential race in the contested states. Popular opinion could have supported that, because it’s only fair play and the fair way to handle any disputed contest.
If the states refused, then the House would have the necessary justification to invoke the 12th Amendment, where the Vice President rejects the tally of the Electoral College and the House decides the outcome, by each state delegation casting one vote. This provision is one of the checks and balances in the Constitution. The Republic is a confederation of sovereign states, which elect a President, and the 12th Amendment is a protection against a faction gaining control of the vote in a few large states, overriding the will of a majority of the states. As America splits into urban and rural regions, we may need to start taking this Amendment seriously.
Nonetheless, the VP and the Republican state delegations found it difficult to invoke the 12th, because it would look too much like a coup — one fraud against another. It needed to be underpinned by showing eagerness to buttress the fraud allegations by putting the vote to the test again. It is also politically risky to depend on seldom-used provisions. A winning strategy needs to be robust and popularly seen to be rightful.
Trump and Pence had to persistently ask for a new vote with anti-fraud provisions, one without mail-in ballots, also due to time constraints. Too great a delay affects our national security — can we afford a prolonged constitutional crisis? The President and can’t force states to hold runoff elections, of course, the states should do it themselves. It’s all about political legitimacy.
There was a lot of speculation about what the Constitution says, but even the highest laws only apply to bona fide results, not to protect fraud. And there is no way one could prove the true result beyond a reasonable doubt by audits or investigations or lawsuits, especially with voting machines. It was too close, the allegations too great. The only way to ascertain the will of the people in those States is to let them vote again, with proper safeguards, such as proposed by the Carter-Baker Commission and by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. With millions of votes to audit, fraud is not easy to prove or punish after the fact. Ordinary auditing methods are not at all suited to discovering fraud.
On January 6, VP Pence said it should be decided by the people’s representatives (of which he is one), instead of asking it to be put first to a fair and fraud-free vote by the people themselves.
Here is what he could have announced to Congress instead:
1. The protection of the laws does not apply to fraud. Underlying every law there is a presumption of bona fides — a basic legal principle.
2. That he as VP cannot accept those electoral votes in dispute until there are secure and trustworthy run-off elections, because this is the only way to prove the validity of the outcomes beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The presidential election result is postponed until action is taken by a sufficient number of states to verify 270 indisputable electoral votes.
4. The runoff should be with hand ballots only, on presentation of official photo identification. No voting machines and no mail-ins. Because any significant variance between hand ballots and mail ballots will again be suspect, mail-in ballots can only confuse the effort to confirm the true will of the people.
5. Pence could have suggested forming a bipartisan Electoral Commission to organize the runoff elections. Runoff elections were the only way. You can’t discover the truth of the matter when you start from bad data.
This option was little discussed. Michael Flynn called for it, in overly military style, when he suggested that Trump could declare martial law, and force a rerun of elections in swing states, but this was seen as undemocratic and unconstitutional. More diplomatically, by insistently calling for runoffs, Trump would be seen as the defender of democracy and the Constitution, forcing the states to show that they feared the outcome, while he was confident of victory. Thus the Republicans might have acquired the moral authority to invoke the 12th Amendment, or at the very least, postpone the certification of the electors, until the runoff issue was decided.
This is not the last time we’ll see attempts to steal elections in our Republic. Let this be a lesson for learning how to eliminate electoral fraud.
Discussion of Highlights
1, The People’s Right to Fair Elections.
In the 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, Chairmen Jimmy Carter and James Baker called for safeguards to make sure every real vote counts — and only every real vote. Strict voter ID requirements, restrictions on mail-in voting, maintaining accurate voter registration lists, allowing election observers to monitor the count, and ensuring the accuracy of voting machines were among the 87 recommendations.
According to FrontPageMag.com, “Beginning more than a year ago, Democrats filed nearly 300 lawsuits in dozens of states[7] — most notably all of the key battleground states — in an effort to change election laws and regulations in ways that would benefit Democrat candidates. For example, they sought to: (a) extend the statutory deadlines by which mail-in ballots could be submitted, postmarked, or received by election authorities; (b) permit people to vote earlier than ever before, in some cases as many as 50 days prior to Election Day; (c) eliminate signature, signature-verification, and witness requirements for mail-in ballots; (d) void state laws that disallowed ballot harvesting by third parties; (e) terminate photo-ID requirements for in-person voting; (f) introduce provisions that would allow for the “curing” of mail-in ballots that contained errors or omissions; and (g) require state election officials to send unsolicited mail-in ballots to every person listed as a registered voter, even though such lists have long been notoriously inaccurate.[8] … Though the Democrats did not get everything that they wanted, they got most of it.”
The article, “Yes, It Was a Stolen Election — You’d have to be blind not to see it,” also lists many of the fraud allegations, and statistical indicators that raise doubts about the results. Have these claims been debunked? Reuters tackled the report on vote spikes that switched the vote on election night, for example, it notes that this happened in Wisconsin when Milwaukee County “reported its 170,000 absentee votes, which were overwhelmingly Democrat” – not too reassuring. Their verdict is inconclusive and speculative. FactCheck.org published “Nine Election Fraud Claims, None Credible,” saying the alleged anomalies in counting practices are normal. They also refuted a report that Dominion voting machines are designed to allow fraud.
Yet the evidence on ballot-harvesting and paid vote-buying is irrefutable. How widespread was it? A Texan named Raquel Rodriguez was just arrested for vote-buying after she told Project Veritas all about it on video. And according to Judicial Watch, “In 378 U.S. counties, voter registration rates exceed 100% of the adult population.”
We do not have the hard numbers we need to confirm such close results. Scientific knowledge relies on empirical, observable evidence from repeatable experiments or trials, and this is what we propose.
What to do if there are unfounded claims of fraud? There is skepticism in many quarters about the allegations of fraud made in the 2020 election. Certainly there needs to be a check against frivolous claims of fraud, and this should not be hard to do. First of all runoff elections are already required in many states when the vote is close, although not usually with added fraud safeguards. Secondly, it is possible to focus high-integrity runoff voting tests first on one or more counties, districts or precincts that display the greatest irregularities, to assess the likelihood that fraud may have tipped the statewide outcome. More on this in (5) below.
2, The Law and the State Cannot Condone Fraud.
In his January 6th opinion on his constitutional duty, Pence did note serious concerns about election fraud, but seemed to have no idea what to do about it, or was afraid to tackle it.
It is the duty of every official, indeed every citizen, to assist in exposing fraud, and not to aid and abet it. The law does not give protection to fraud, nor can it be used to do so.
These are basic and fundamental principles, which need not be repeated explicitly in each piece of legislation.
Some legal scholars might overlook the fact that all laws, including the Constitution, are written to govern normal, bona fide matters, and do not digress upon the special case of fraud. There is no need to try and tease out any special provision for fraud from the Constitution, as it is a charter of civil law. One must simply apply common law and common sense principles to fill the “gap” which is no gap in the law: it is a space for us to take action needed to restore the matter to a bona fide basis.
According to theconversation.com, Pence faced “a choice between fidelity to the Constitution and fidelity to Trump.” Stating a problem as a dilemma is a perfect way to exclude other, better choices. There is also fidelity to truth, and fidelity to the people. There is a third way between rejecting and accepting the doubtful electoral votes. It is finding the truth about the real will of the voters.
Pence should have delayed certification until such time as the Supreme Court or the States took action to ensure the election was fair. The 12th Amendment foresees the process of certification lasting as long as March 4th.
Having noted fraud concerns, Pence mistakenly excused himself from any right or duty to do anything about them. He acted improperly by abdicating responsibility and turning over the count to the Congress, which was certain to reject all objections, since it requires a majority of both houses to sustain them, and the Democrats could and did vote them down.
Pence’s references to the election of 1876 cited a very bad precedent, one that showed the need for run-off elections, and the fact that Congress and even Supreme Court justices will vote on party lines. (See the Endnote on the Election of 1876, and the Appendix, Pence’s Letter to Congress of January 6th, 2021.)
3, The Distinction between Civil and Criminal Law.
In the civil law of contracts, for instance, there is no need to state that when payment is in cash, counterfeit bills are not honored. This is understood. Counterfeiting is a crime governed by the criminal code, which is separate from the civil code. The Constitution is essentially a civil code. We cannot expect it to provide procedures for dealing with fraud. This rests with the citizens, representatives and officers who have a fundamental responsibility to take the necessary measures to prevent the success of a fraudulent election. Yet when the representatives are themselves suspected beneficiaries of fraud, they are not competent to rule on the matter.
The Supreme Court improperly dismissed the electoral fraud complaint by the state of Texas. The Court ruled that Texas had no standing, but standing is a criterion of civil litigation. Fraud is a crime, and in criminal law, to report wrongdoing to the authorities is not only a universal right, it is every citizen’s duty. To condone the cover-up of a crime is to facilitate it, making one effectively an accessory. The Supreme Court should reverse its decision on the Texas complaint and consider it together with that of President Trump.
4, Checks and Balances, Due Process.
Since one party controls both houses of Congress, and many statehouses as well, there needs to be certainty, or at least bipartisan agreement, that the vote was fair before Congress can exercise its prerogative of denying objections and approving electoral results. The framers of the Constitution regarded “Faction” as an evil, and were opposed to any role at all for political parties, which tend to be corrupt cartels for the control of political power.
Is Trump being punished as an outsider to a corrupt two-in-one party system? He supposedly lost while increasing his total vote over 2016, yet the Republican Party did quite well. “May the best cheater win” — is that the motto?
In the fraud allegations, the plaintiff was the Republican Donald Trump, and the defendant or suspected perpetrator was in essence the Democratic Party. Since the Democrats controlled the House, letting them dismiss the accusations against themselves was a gross violation of due process. For Pence merely to decertify state results would likewise have violated due process, because it would go to a Republican judge (the House delegations with one vote per state) finding for the Republican plaintiff. This lack of due process would violate the principle of checks and balances. It would allow any party that controlled the office of Vice-President and a majority of house delegations to overturn elections, even by unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.
If, however, the contested states refused to remove the cause for complaint in good faith and beyond a reasonable doubt, by holding repeat elections with anti-fraud safeguards — this would be akin to contempt of court. The Vice President would then be justified in rejecting their votes, or the Supreme Court could order compliance.
5, Difficulties to Overcome and Possible Solutions.
Although the conduct of elections at the state level is a power reserved to the states, the Supreme Court has frequently ruled on these matters, and might order the states in dispute to guarantee fair repeat elections, along the lines recommended by the Commission on Federal Election Reform. In the past, SCOTUS rulings on state conduct of elections have mostly expanded the vote. This has gone too far, when ghosts can outvote the citizenry. For a fair election, one must consider quality and accuracy, as well as quantity.
There is a fairly simple way to ensure that votes are not switched during the count. Each ballot is numbered and the voter receives a stub with the number on it. Text files of all the ballot numbers and the way each ballot was voted can be posted online, with totals by precinct and district. Anyone will be able to check online that their ballot was counted as cast: a simple, open-source, self-auditing vote tally system. This system can be combined with Tulsi Gabbard’s bill H.R.1946 requiring paper receipts for voting machines.
An open-source tally by ballot number will protect against authentic votes being changed, but not against ghost voting. The only way to ensure voters exist is for them to physically present and identify themselves at the poll station. Because of Covid19, the Carter Center suggested in 2020 that “where safeguards for ballot integrity are in place,” such as prohibitions on ballot harvesting, mail-in votes could be relatively fraud-free, but we need a higher degree of probity now. https://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/2020/united-states-050620.html
We can anticipate that a mandate for a runoff election with hand ballots only will be attacked, among other things, as a risk of spreading Covid 19. Yet essential services and stores are open, and what could be more essential than electoral integrity? The risk can be mitigated in various ways, such as appointment scheduling, social distancing for walk ins, and staying open more than one day if needed.
The fake vote question can be addressed by sampling: hand-ballot runoffs in a few areas with the abnormally highest ratio of votes to the number of registered voters. If the new results under these controlled conditions are very close to the original tally, both in total numbers and the voting preference, then fraud is unlikely — especially if the percentage spread between candidates in the sample does not change much, or not enough to reverse the margin of victory in the original vote.
Was there significant fraud? It depends who you ask, and the opinions follow party lines. Pence thought there was. Trey Trainor, the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, thought so too. The mainstream media and social media giants ridicule the idea.
There are practical problems with a remedy in the courts. The volume of data involved — millions of votes — makes it difficult to apply forensic methods, and also to convince people of the outcome. The best remedy for a botched performance is to do it right the second time. If the new, fraud-proof tally still gives Biden victory, then the fears of fraud will be unsubstantiated. We will also have established an important new precedent for reliably testing electoral integrity. If the new tally changes the outcome, then it may be time to overturn the election result, and to investigate and press charges against those responsible for fraud, even treason.
Conclusions and Proposals.
The certification of the election on January 6th was unconstitutional, because it followed procedures that apply only to bona fide election results. The protections of the laws do not extend to fraud. There must first be reasonable assurance that the results are free of any significant fraud.
The certification also violated due process, since it gave the decision into the hands of the party suspected of fraud.
Thus the election certification was a mistrial. If fraud took place on the scale alleged, then the election was also a mistrial. The remedy in both cases is a retrial.
The Ninth Amendment is an escape clause stipulating that the provisions of the Constitution shall not be construed to deny the rights retained by the people — such as the right to due process and fair elections.
The people and the federal government are principals, who have delegated the election of their officials to the states, who are their agents. The principal always has the right to have the work done to the standards of probity. What must prevail is the realization that if work has been done wrong, it must be put right.
Three branches of government have evidently failed to ensure our right to fair elections: the Congress, certain states, and even the Executive, in the person of the Vice-President.
The branch that can repair the loss now is the Supreme Court judiciary. It can mandate new elections in cases where there are major allegations of fraud and a narrow apparent margin of victory.
It may do this on its own, or by a number of its justices joining a bipartisan Electoral Commission together with Congress, as was done in 1876, but with one major difference. Rather than trying to adjudicate the outcome itself, the Commission should identify precincts or states that are most in need of repeat voting.
For this purpose, the Federal Election Commission should publish a tabulation by precinct for the contested swing states, comparing the results between 2016 and 2020, giving percentages of voter turnout, and of votes for each party and presidential candidate, broken down by in-person, mail-in and absentee ballots, in order to confirm or allay the suspicions raised, and to identify which precincts are most in need of repeat voting.
To expedite matters, it is best to use hand ballots only. Extra measures are needed against vote buying and for monitoring and secrecy of voting, especially in the trial precincts.
Going forward, Congress should pass the anti-fraud measures recommended by Tulsi Gabbard, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, and for the open-source, self-auditing vote tally system proposed here.
Endnote on 1876
It is hard to imagine a worse precedent than the election of 1876 to support Pence’s plea for the primacy of “the people’s representatives” in interpreting the will of the people themselves, without any delay for fraud investigations. In 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote with a lead of 3%, but with allegations of fraud on both sides, it was impossible to tell who had really won in the Electoral College. The two parties made a backroom deal, giving the Presidency to the Republican Rutherford Hayes, in exchange for concessions like removing the last remaining Federal troops from the South.
A 15-member bipartisan Electoral Commission of 10 members of Congress and 5 Supreme Court Justices was set up to adjudicate the returns from the four contested states. In a series of 8-7 decisions, voting strictly on party lines, they gave all four states to Hayes, handing him a one-vote margin in the Electoral College. The Republican Justice Bradley on the Commission cast the deciding votes. His opinion on the matter is thus hardly impartial. Pence quotes Bradley as saying the role of President of the Senate is only “ministerial.” A minister is an important office, certainly enough for a duty which every citizen has, that is to prevent fraud. Indeed, the President pro tempore of the Senate presided over the Electoral Commission that Bradley sat on in 1876. By precedent, Pence could have presided over a commission working to resolve the disputes of the election of 2020.
As a precedent also, the election debacle of 1876 supports our thesis here: that Congress cannot be entrusted with the adjudication of an election under a two-party system; that attempts to correct the count through investigations into fraud generally prove frustrating and futile; and that runoffs in states with a very close vote should have been instituted as the solution then and there. We can do it now.
Appendix. Text of VP Pence’s Statement to Congress, January 6th, 2021
THE VICE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON
January 6, 2021
Dear Colleague:
Today, for the 59th time in our Nation’s history, Congress will convene in Joint Session to count the electoral votes for President of the United States. Under our Constitution, it will be my duty as Vice President and as President of the Senate to serve as the presiding officer.
After an election with significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of this election. The American people choose the American President, and have every right under the law to demand free and fair elections and a full investigation of electoral misconduct. As presiding officer, I will do my duty to ensure that these concerns receive a fair and open hearing in the Congress of the United States. Objections will be heard, evidence will be presented, and the elected representatives of the American people will make their decision.
Our Founders created the Electoral College in 1787, and it first convened in 1789. With the advent of political parties, the Electoral College was amended in 1804 to provide that Electors vote separately for President and Vice President. Following a contentious election in 1876, with widespread allegations of fraud and malfeasance, Congress spent a decade establishing rules and procedures to govern the counting of electoral votes and the resolution of any objections.
During the 130 years since the Electoral Count Act was passed, Congress has, without exception, used these formal procedures to count the electoral votes every four years.
Given the controversy surrounding this year’s election, some approach this year’s quadrennial tradition with great expectation, and others with dismissive disdain. Some believe that as Vice President, I should be able to accept or reject electoral votes unilaterally. Others believe that electoral votes should never be challenged in a Joint Session of Congress.
After a careful study of our Constitution, our laws, and our history, I believe neither view is correct.
The President is the chief executive officer of the Federal Government under our Constitution, possessing immense power to impact the lives of the American people. The Presidency belongs to the American people, and to them alone. When disputes concerning a presidential election arise, under Federal law, it is the people’s representatives who review the evidence and resolve disputes through a democratic process.
Our Founders were deeply skeptical of concentrations of power and created a Republic based on separation of powers and checks and balances under the Constitution of the United States.
Vesting the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide presidential contests would be entirely antithetical to that design. As a student of history who loves the Constitution and reveres its Framers, I do not believe that the Founders of our country intended to invest the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide which electoral votes should be counted during the Joint Session of Congress, and no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority. Instead, Vice Presidents presiding over Joint Sessions have uniformly followed the Electoral Count Act, conducting the proceedings in an orderly manner even where the count resulted in the defeat of their party or their own candidacy.
As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley wrote following the contentious election of 1876, “the powers of the President of the Senate are merely ministerial… He is not invested with any authority for making any investigation outside of the Joint Meeting of the two Houses… [I]f any examination at all is to be gone into, or any judgment exercised in relation to the votes received, it must be performed and exercised by the two Houses.” More recently, as the former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig observed, “[t]he only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the Electoral College votes as they have been cast,” adding “[t]he Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise.”
It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.
While my role as presiding officer is largely ceremonial, the role of the Congress is much different, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 establishes a clear procedure to address election controversies when they arise during the count of the vote of the Electoral College. Given the voting irregularities that took place in our November elections and the disregard of state election statutes by some officials, I welcome the efforts of Senate and House members who have stepped forward to use their authority under the law to raise objections and present evidence.
As presiding officer, I will ensure that any objections that are sponsored by both a Representative and a Senator are given proper consideration, and that all facts supporting those objections are brought before the Congress and the American people. Those who suggest that raising objections under the Electoral Count Act is improper or undemocratic ignore more than 130 years of history, and fail to acknowledge that Democrats raised objections in Congress each of the last three times that a Republican candidate for President prevailed.
Today it will be my duty to preside when the Congress convenes in Joint Session to count the votes of the Electoral College, and I will do so to the best of my ability. I ask only that Representatives and Senators who will assemble before me approach this moment with the same sense of duty and an open mind, setting politics and personal interests aside, and do our part to faithfully discharge our duties under the Constitution. I also pray that we will do so with humility and faith, remembering the words of John Quincy Adams, who said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.”
On January 6 a huge assembly of Donald Trump’s supporters (“Make America Great Again,” MAGA) assembled in Washington. Their purpose was to greet the initiation of a Congressional investigation into the contested presidential election of 2020. The members of the US Congress were turning a major new page in history. They were initiating their own evaluation of a massive fraud that in my estimation will always undermine the credibility of the 2020 vote.
Just as the congressional process was beginning to unfold, hundreds or possibly thousands of individuals entered the Capitol Building in a process running rife with many unanswered questions. Without any sober second thoughts, however, a huge media operation instantaneously roared into action. The well-orchestrated media chorus went to work blaming the whole episode on the alleged provocation by Donald Trump. The conclusion of Trump’s speech to a live audience that approached a million people verged into the opening moments of Congressional proceedings.
The current rush to judgment by the already thoroughly discredited mainstream media (MSM) is very reminiscent of the hours following the 9/11 debacle. In 2021 as in 2001, the media presented a full interpretation of a symbolically potent episode without any proper investigation whatsoever.
Within literally days of the 2001 episode, the US Armed Forces were invading Eurasia on the basis of what was subsequently well demonstrated to be a false interpretation of 9/11. In the current episode, those who have good reason to want a diversion from a Congressional investigation into election 2020 are calling for Trump’s head. The push is to exploit the episode to disgrace Trump and pull him from the presidency in ignominy before January 20.
Those advancing a quick way of pushing aside the well-documented proof of election fraud happen to be the main beneficiaries of the dominant interpretation of the Capitol Hill episode of 1/6/21. Whether in media, government or so-called law enforcement, these beneficiaries have almost no credibility when it comes to dealing with the substance of false flag events. Indeed, for false flag events to be successful the media and police must collaborate in the misrepresentations of what really happened in order to advance surreptitiously the desired political objectives.
As mainstream media becomes even more of a bandwagon of anti-Trump propaganda than it was throughout the 2020 election, it is important for conscientious citizens to step back a bit. Only by looking at events with the benefit of some distance is it possible to know what is really going on. It is important to evaluate the 1/6/21 episode with a healthy degree of skepticism; to consider all available evidence from a variety of perspectives.
Both Michael Snyder and Jon Rapport have come up with commentaries that include important evidence showing that police encouraged MAGA people to enter the Capitol Grounds and possibly the Capitol Building as well. Further evidence is presented that ANTIFA people were very active outside and inside the Capitol Building. MAGA people in real time actually identified and condemned as ANIFA plants those pictured doing aggressive property damage. Antifa refers to a group that were centrally involved in the rioting, looting and burning that took place all summer in many urban centers including Chicago, New York, Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland.
Finally it has achieved what its elite has pushed for.
America is a united country: its senate, congress and future president are guided by the same ‘progressive’ ideology that is also shared by its financial elite, cultural industry, academia and of course, the mainstream media.
America is institutionally united but Americans couldn’t be more divided.
The United States has been a social testing ground for a while. But from now on until further notice, there is no established or institutional opposition to this groundbreaking experiment.
But I am optimistic, I would give it the necessary time. We may find out soon that all these so-called rebellious ‘reactionaries,’ ‘cowboys,’ ‘rednecks,’ and ‘deplorables’ actually like the new cultural and spiritual offering. They may be quick to adopt the revolutionary spirit. They might, for instance, agree to dump their delusional beliefs in gender being a binary matter. Give it four years or even eight, not one American will be able to recall what man or woman meant.
Following the rapid dismantling of police forces, American thieves and burglars will also be quick to morph. Peacefully they will knock on your door. They will introduce themselves and explain the rationale behind their will to obtain some of your belongings. You, on your privileged part, may save them the energy, by then you will also gather that whatever is precious to you better belong to the people. The shift will be so immense that reactionary 2nd amendment enthusiasts will voluntarily develop repulsion towards their own guns. They will find themselves delivering their lethal toys to their local scrapyard, they may even ask to witness their Colt 45 being melted.
It’s likely that sooner rather than later, we’ll be so used to being locked in our homes that we stop seeking any meaningful social engagement, let alone intimacy of a libidinal nature that may expose us to other people’s disgusting germs.
From the very first day of his presidency, I gathered that by the time Trump finishes his historical role, the United States will be reduced to a very small and insignificant country. This is not a bad thing. America is, by now, far less of a danger to world peace, let alone itself.
I am not going to be nostalgic for Trump, Kushner or Adelson. I never thought that Trump would clean the swamp and I didn’t understand why he believed he wasn’t part of it himself. Trump was and still is a very peculiar character. He was loved and admired by many. He was also hated by at least as many. People who love Trump (and there are many of them) know exactly what they like about him. People who are repulsed by the man and for understandable reasons, also know what they can’t tolerate about him. Trump is certainly an authentic ‘character,’ not something that can be said about any of his rivals. Trump was brilliant in drawing the lines of the battle that is inflicted on all of us. He clearly wasn’t very skillful or subtle in fighting or leading this battle, let alone winning it.
Maybe no one is skillful, brave or sophisticated enough to lead such an impossible battle. It could be much simpler to identify the cultural and ideological elements that impose this war on us all of us. We should then uproot this culture and expose its envoys.
American lawmakers gathered to continue certifying Electoral College votes for the 2020 race, reconvening at the Capitol hours after a massive group of demonstrators stormed the building, prompting an evacuation of officials.
The House and Senate made another attempt to certify votes around 8pm on Wednesday night, resuming the process following an eruption of violence in Washington, DC, which saw hundreds of Trump supporters storm the Capitol, occupying the chambers for several hours before they were cleared out by law enforcement.
While a number of GOP lawmakers had planned to object to the vote certification, alleging irregularities in the presidential race, asked about the matter before Congress regrouped, Republican Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) said he did not expect any serious objections the second time around.
“In consultation with [House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer] and [House Whip Jim Clyburn] and after calls to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the Vice President, we have decided we should proceed tonight at the Capitol once it is cleared for use,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement ahead of the second effort to certify.
Security forces clad in heavy body armor were stationed near the Senate floor on Wednesday night, with piles of gear seen strewn across the building’s hallways. House Democrat Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries earlier reported that the Capitol had been cleared, and that lawmakers would return “when it is safe.”
Staffers were allowed back inside through underground tunnels, seen in a photo shared on Twitter by NBC correspondent Garrett Haake.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-Kentucky] addressed the day’s events when the body reconvened.
“The United States Senate will not be intimidated. We will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs or threats. We will not bow to lawlessness or intimidation. We are back at our post, we will discharge our duty under the Constitution and for our nation – and we’re gonna do it tonight,” he said.
One woman was fatally shot as rioters attempted to breach the Senate chamber, captured in disturbing footage circulating online. She was seen leaving the building on a stretcher and later died of her injuries, according to law enforcement sources.
A 6pm curfew was ordered across the nation’s capital amid the chaos, as well as in nearby Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia, where Governor Ralph Northam has also declared a state of emergency. DC’s National Guard unit was “fully activated” to assist local police.
Legislators had only just begun the certification process when the violence erupted, part of the formal procedure to transfer power to President-elect Joe Biden. President Trump and his supporters maintain the 2020 race was plagued by extensive voter fraud and had repeatedly called on Republican lawmakers, as well as Vice President Mike Pence, to challenge the Electoral College count. Pence, however, signaled earlier on Wednesday that he would not do so, arguing he lacked the authority to invalidate votes. His refusal, however, did little to calm the swarm of Trump supporters gathered outside the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon.
Violent supporters of US President Donald Trump have breached the Capitol in Washington, as lawmakers met to confirm President-elect Joe Biden’s poll win.
In dramatic scenes, demonstrators swarmed the building as Congress members were escorted out by police.
A joint session of Congress had been counting and confirming Electoral College votes but has been suspended and forced into recess.
There are reports of guns drawn in the building and at least one person shot.
A woman was reported to be in a critical condition after receiving a neck injury.
There has been an armed confrontation at the doors of the House of Representatives. Tear gas has also been used.
Members of Congress have been told to evacuate the building or remain where they are. One congresswoman tweeted that she was staying in her office.
Trump urged people to remain peaceful and respect law enforcement officials.
Vice-President Mike Pence called on the rioters to leave the Capitol immediately, saying the violence and destruction “must stop now”.
Trump’s spokeswoman, Kayleigh McEnany, tweeted that the National Guard was being deployed.
Rioters were seen marching through the building chanting “We want Trump” and one was photographed in the Senate president’s chair.
A citywide curfew has been declared from 18:00 to 06:00 [23:00 to 11:00 GMT] by Washington DC’s mayor.
There are also reports of protests at state legislatures in Kansas and Georgia.
People everywhere are eager to bid farewell to 2020, a year in which our lives were turned upside down by power-mad elites who seized the Covid-19 pandemic as a chance to go full police state. But be careful what you wish for.
The year 2020 has proven things can always get worse, delivering a worldwide economic depression, a coronavirus pandemic, riots across the US, and unprecedented political division. It’s safe to say most of humanity is eager to close the book on it. But merely putting up a new calendar does nothing to address these issues, which seem certain to reach a breaking point. Humanity has been pushed to the limit with arbitrary rules, enforced poverty, and mandated isolation — it will only take a spark or two for things to explode.
It’s clear from the media establishment’s non-stop fear-porn broadcasts that Covid-19 isn’t going anywhere next year. Even as a growing body of evidence suggests lockdowns and mask-wearing have little if any effect on the spread of the novel coronavirus, governments will maintain these stringent behavioral controls, keeping the public terrified enough to beg for authoritarianism. But as vaccines are rolled out to the general public, the divide between those obeying the rules and the dissidents will only grow.
News outlets around the world have been pushing the narrative that ‘health passports’ outfitted with the bearer’s Covid-19 vaccination status will be required to travel, enter public spaces, and even get a job in the near future. These certificates are already being presented as the only possible route out of lockdown, even as the heads of both Pfizer and Moderna have admitted their vaccines probably won’t stop the spread of the coronavirus. Accordingly, those who decline to get the jab will be treated as pariahs, banned from some public spaces and told it’s their fault life hasn’t gone back to normal, just as so-called “anti-maskers” have been.
The same army of Karens that scream and point at anyone who dares leave home without their face covered will gleefully rise to the occasion of doxxing, outing, and tormenting vaccine skeptics. Anyone who isn’t thrilled by the idea of ingesting an experimental compound whose makers have been indemnified from any lawsuits will be deemed an enemy of the state, even separated from their children or removed from their home as a “health risk.” Neighbors will gleefully rat each other out for the equivalent of an extra chocolate ration, meaning even the most slavishly obedient individuals could end up in “quarncentration camps” for upsetting the wrong person.
Even those who’ve remained silent about masks and lockdowns, afraid of “making waves,” are unlikely to take involuntary inoculation lying down. Almost two thirds of Americans aren’t interested in taking the vaccine, meaning the Karens and the kapos may run into unexpected resistance.
In the US, the increasingly certain reality of a Biden presidency is also likely to push some people over the edge, though the president-elect seems to have realized that shoving his whole program down American throats at once will make the country choke. Even so, Biden and his vice president Kamala Harris have made enough statements on gutting the First and Second Amendments, turning the suburbs into mini-cities packed with government-subsidized housing, and adopting Green New Deal carbon controls that half the electorate sees their inauguration as a threat to their way of life.
Rumors of militia groups, veterans, and even active-duty military rising up against the supposed communist takeover may seem far-fetched, given such groups’ willingness over the last year to allow government to trample over such fundamental freedoms as the right to earn a living or even leave one’s house, but seeing Trump leave the White House could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. These groups are well-armed and will easily wipe out whatever Antifa cannon-fodder the neoliberal centrists can throw at them. Nor can the establishment necessarily count on police to save them, having spent the last several months calling for defunding law enforcement. Trump’s call for “wild protests” in January, coupled with his former national security adviser Mike Flynn cheering for martial law, have been interpreted as a green light to do whatever it takes to keep the White House out of Democrat hands.
The centrist establishment isn’t helping matters by declaring Trump supporters to be essentially subhuman and not worth conversing with. Worse, by promoting doxxing anyone who’s ever expressed the “wrong” ideas on social media, they’re only stirring up conservative resentment. The longer economic shutdowns last, the more likely disaffected Americans are to decide they have nothing left to lose and attempt to take a few establishment types out with them.
Not that all in opposition to Biden believe the sundowning centrist plans to install a dictatorship of the proletariat, of course. Many fear his use of the “Build Back Better” slogan popularized by proponents of humanity’s soulless “new normal” suggests his administration will be responsible for the US implementation of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, a much more terrifying prospect than some milquetoast Marxism. This disturbing plan, devised by WEF CEO Klaus Schwab and a coterie of wealthy financiers and businessmen, aims to do away with private property, bodily integrity, familial bonds, and other pillars of western civilization, while shifting the world’s finances to blockchain-based Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and doing away with cash.
Coming off like a Bond villain straight out of central casting, Schwab has enthused about the coming merger of humans with technology, which will enable whole new spheres of individual and social control. From Microsoft founder Bill Gates’ plan to blanket the earth with spy satellites, to DARPA’s efforts to bring surveillance under the skin with “hydrogel” sensors that monitor vital signs and transmit the data to the cloud, the global technocracy these oligarchs seek will change what it means to be human – a feature, not a bug, in their eyes. And while the vast majority of western society seems utterly supine now, it’s unlikely they’ll sit idly by while the rich and powerful strip them of their humanity. The WEF’s smiley-faced propaganda (“Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, I have no privacy, and I couldn’t be happier”) may well be its epitaph.COVID-19 Lockdowns Are in Lockstep with the ‘Great Reset’
The United States corporate-dominated media has found that the easiest way to shape news coverage on the scores of legal challenges to the 2020 presidential election is to only report on them when the cases have lost.
After all, the more newspaper inches given to objective discussions of widespread voter fraud allegations equals the more chances an average American starts to think the election was rigged. This theory presumes that the average American is so docile and programmable that they have already completely forgotten the mainstream claims which dominated the previous four years: that the election was rigged (by Vladimir Putin).
Not reporting until a court rejects an integrity challenge also allows for a superior “I-knew-it-all-along” tone, combined with open accusations of lunacy on the part of the aggrieved party.
More than a month after the vote the party (Republicans) remains tremendously aggrieved: top pollster Gallup just reported that 83% of Republicans say that reports of Biden being the president-elect are not “accurate”. Yes, it’s an oddly-worded poll, but so many US wordsmiths have been purposely opaque since election day.
It’s always been easy to roll one’s eyes at the smug tone because such condescension will drop to the ground lack a bag of bricks with just one Supreme Court loss, after all.
Yes, the widespread US belief prior to November 3, 2020, was that their elections were poorly designed, poorly funded, poorly run, poorly counted and porous in many other ways besides, but I always thought the biggest post-election day challenge would be over the exact issue which has led to the totally unprecedented situation of states suing other states over accusations of ruining the election’s integrity:
Texas – now joined by Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas – is suing the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin over mail-in ballots.
I’ll show that the US Constitution makes it clear their case should at least be heard by the Supreme Court. The state-on-state nature already takes the case directly to the top.
The Supreme Court always had to rule on the unprecedented expansion of mail-in balloting
What’s so interesting about “democracy with US characteristics” is how the nine justices of the Supreme Court are allowed to be so very, very removed from US society. They debate in private, they grant media interviews very rarely, they don’t have to say much in court (Justice Clarence Thomas went from 2006 to 2016 without publicly asking a question), nor do they even have to give public reasons for many of the momentous decisions they make (they just rejected a key vote fraud case in Pennsylvania with one sentence, but more accurately only one word: “denied”). It’s not the Holy See of Rome, but it’s close.
But it’s not close regarding the holiness, because what this unaccountable and unelected regime of nine holds sacred is merely the 18th century US Constitution, something which is currently losing lustre worldwide by the minute.
Some, not all, of these justices are Wahhabi-like in their insistence that the document is “dead” (and perfect in its deadness), in that it must be followed both to the letter and in the spirt of the bygone (allegedly golden) age in which it was written.
Given this ideological reality doesn’t it seem clear that executive branch orders by some governors, or even just their secretaries of state, to massively and controversially flood their states with mail-in ballots violated the US Constitution – even if these actions were approved by some in the judicial branch – because they often did not get legislative branch approval? Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature …”
Texas’ lawsuit thus asserts: “The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.” The suit claims the vote in Texas was tainted by the vote in Pennsylvania, etc.
People may notice that Article 1, Section 4 does not talk about “Elections for President”, but the US elects their president by an Electoral College, not direct vote. It is regularly inferred that this clause also applies to the presidential vote, but it is actually addressed in Article 2, Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” Again it’s the state legislature which decides how to decide to “appoint” (not “elect”) Electoral College “Electors”, and Article 2, Section 1 is cited in Texas’ lawsuit.
I wish I could find more good media reports on this case to better inform my opinion but – as I began – you just can’t find much objective journalistic discussion on the US voter fraud causes. No well-known anti-Trump media I saw ever even broached Article 2, Section 1 – even though it was named in the lawsuit – all they had was hysterical and completely unobjective denials that the Texas lawsuit doesn’t even attempt to make a coherent argument. And yet: the Supreme Court gave the defendant states less than 48 hours to respond to Texas’ lawsuit – by 3pm on December 10.
The suit also says the expansion made the vote insecure, but forget about all the alleged vote machine tampering, the purported “smoking gun” videos, the reported 1,000 testimonies making accusations of election malfeasance – all of that either has the evidence or it doesn’t. Maybe there was a huge conspiracy of voter fraud, or maybe there wasn’t. The nation’s top intelligence official, the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, just said that all issues of election fraud must be investigated and only then would we see “whether there is a Biden administration”. Will they all be properly investigated? This is America, so all we can say for sure is that no matter what happens America will insist that they are the spotless beacon the world should follow.
But the question of mail-in ballots – this enormous change to the US voting system which inspired seemingly thousands of complaints by Donald Trump on Twitter, as well as from many regular American citizens – this is the dispute which has the power to immediately invalidate the 2020 vote.
I say: yes, it should invalidate the vote – that is, if Americans want to follow the rules of the antiquated and fundamentally aristocratic American system.
America is not a modern democracy, nor is it accountable – don’t expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the outsider Trump
Yes, pro-Trumpers were wrong to wait until after the election – to see if their candidate lost – before bringing this suit, but who’s to say that elite Democrats wouldn’t have forced some of their own governors to do the same thing if Biden was the projected loser? How can judges rule on a case which was never brought before them? The bottom line is that checks and balances are what make democracy “democracy”, whether that democracy is Athenian, American, Chinese socialist or Iranian Islamic, and one person should not be able to change the fundamental nature of how elections are held, even if that person is a state governor or secretary of state, and even if a state judge says their change is ok.
Modern democracies have (at least) three branches for a reason, but it’s ok that mail-in ballots were often routed around the legislative branch?
(I often say Iranian democracy has revolutionarily created a “Supreme Leader branch”. I’d also say the massive influence of the internet/digital age gives more credence to making the unofficial “Fourth Estate” – the media – an official branch. What’s wrong with more than three branches, other than: But the bourgeois West doesn’t do it?)
The re-routing (and some state legislatures, such as Nevada, did approve a sweeping expansion to mail-in ballots) of democratic processes into the hands of one person should be seen as a continuation of what Western democracy truly is: liberal strongmanism. This process became out in the open with Dubya Bush’s phony war on Iraq and the Patriot Act, continued with the ignored anti-austerity elections in Greece, is part and parcel of Emmanuel Macron’s “rubber bullet liberalism” war on France’s Yellow Vests, and was seen in 2020 when some US governors essentially said: We want Trump out so badly that we’ll change the elections by fiat to do it.
(Corona was not a valid excuse in November, because by then 2020 had seen many nations successfully and safely hold elections.)
A coronavirus vaccine was announced just two days after Biden declared victory; after months of refusals – which have fiscally disemboweled the US lower classes – Democrats finally agreed to negotiate on their heretofore totally inflexible 2nd stimulus position as soon as the calendar turned from election November to December; Facebook, Twitter and the US mainstream media currently censor the average Republican’s election reflections as if these citizens were calling for a second Holocaust.
Those are not conspiracy theories but are listed to reveal how truly terrible and power-monging the political and cultural elite is in the United States. They overreach their power time and time again, no matter how negative the effect on their domestic public or the rest of the world.
Such persons wanted Trump out, and I’m not saying that they engaged in a massive conspiracy of election fraud to do so – I’m saying that they obviously changed the fundamental nature of the election to do so.
In the US states decide individually how elections are run, but there should have been formal legislative debate about any huge changes to the election format and not merely a gubernatorial order reflected upon in private by a judge. It was undemocratic political overreach in a nation full of people who have been conditioned to believe that the boss/CEO/president can and should be able to fire/personally enrich/sanction at will.
There are enough “strict constructionists” ,”originalists” or (as I call them) “American Salafists” currently on the Supreme Court to see the logic of Texas’ argument. However, I do not think the Supreme Court will find in favor of Texas – the power-holders in the US system are fundamentally anti-Trump, I think 2016-2020 has proven ad nauseam.
Trumpism was vindicated in a grassroots way – like it or not – on November 3rd, but there are no “Trumpist” judges in the top court. Who knows, maybe Trumpism will last long enough that one day there will be, but for now what all Supreme Court judges are is merely typical American conservatives. The idea that even though Supreme Court justices are the most untouchable persons in American society and yet they will bend over backwards to please Trump is, I think, a major (but common) fallacy.
It’s clear that the 2020 election was drastically changed (just look at how voter turnout suddenly was the highest in 120 years), and it’s clear that legislatures often did not fulfil their check and balance role, and it’s clear that “strict constructionism” was not something invented by Justice Anthonin Scalia but is an ideology which has been widely discussed since the very beginning of the American republic… all that will be thrown out to throw out Trump, I predict.
This article has not been pro-Trump or anti-Trump, it is reminding how very drastic the actions of anti-Trump power-holders in the US have been. They changed the nature of the 2020 vote, and they don’t want to admit that, and the Supreme Court is not likely to unconservatively ok a shocking, once-in-three-lifetimes reversal to the 2020 presidential vote – not because of the chaos and alienation it would cause among the 99%, but because American democracy is and has always been expressly designed to protect the elite, not the people/workers/lower classes.
By the way, the only presidential vote which ever mattered at all takes place in less than a week – the Electoral College votes on December 14th. I think this year’s general election on the presidential vote has provided a more interesting – yet legally meaningless – diversion than it normally does, don’t you?
Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.
Jesse Morgan, a truck driver with USPS subcontractor says he was suspicious of his cargo load of 288,000 COMPLETED ballots: “I was driving completed ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. I didn’t know, so I decided to speak up.”
Filed under: USA | Tagged: "Voter Fraud", Trump or Biden, US Election 2020 | Comments Off on A truck driver with USPS says he was suspicious of his cargo load of 288,000 COMPLETED ballots
The United States’ election victory of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has yet to be officially confirmed. That requires the 500-plus Electoral College comprising the 50 federal states to cast the final vote when the constitutional body meets on December 14. Biden holds a commanding lead of over 300 delegates in the Electoral College, more than 70 above Donald Trump’s quota and decisively more than the 270 threshold required for election to the White House.
Nonetheless, already one thing is indisputably clear. Biden’s nominal victory from the popular vote tallies is glaring proof that Russia did not interfere in the American presidential ballot. Not in 2020. And not, we may discern, in 2016, nor in any other election. Yet the silence in US media over this obvious conclusion is deafening.
Four years of frenetic and unsubstantiated allegations of “Russian interference” have disappeared overnight, it seems. Poof! Gone! As if by a magic conjuring trick. Now you see it, now you don’t, so to speak.
The New York Times has declared the recent presidential contest a “great election.. a resounding success free of fraud”. The Department of Homeland Security pronounced the election to be the “most secure in American history.” Other US media outlets have jettisoned supposed political neutrality and can barely contain their elation at Biden’s electoral victory.
But hold on a moment. In the months and weeks leading up to the November election, there was a fever pitch in US media among politicians, national security chiefs, pundits and anonymous intelligence sources that Russia was allegedly stepping up “interference efforts” to get Trump re-elected. Those evidence-free claims were predicated on the equally absurd assertion that Trump was a Manchurian candidate for the Kremlin. That “Russiagate” fable was first spun in 2016 and for the past four years elaborated into a tangled web to “explain” how a maverick former reality TV star had been elected to the White House.
Suddenly, however, the Democrats and supportive US media are now asserting that the voting process was impeccable and unblemished by any malfeasance. Of course they would say that in order to bolster legitimacy of Biden’s win against the Republican White House incumbent Donald Trump. But the thundering takeaway which the US political class and media are bizarrely ignoring is that Russia did not interfere not in the 2020 race nor in any other election. Russia has always categorically said it is not meddling in US politics and its electoral process. Turns out that Russia is de facto vindicated in its protestations against American slander.
The “Russiagate” nonsense was hatched by Democrats, their supportive media and intelligence agencies because they could not come to terms with the reality of why Trump beat the then establishment-ordained candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Could it have been because Clinton and the Democrat party was repudiated by popular sentiment due to perceived corruption and overseas wars? No, another “explanation” had to be found. And the US political establishment came up with the “Russian interference” narrative.
No matter that the Mueller investigation found after 22 months of probing and hundreds of millions of taxpayer-dollars spent that there was no evidence of “Russia collusion” with the Trump campaign. Nevertheless, Mueller and the Democrats, their media and intelligence backers, persisted in the spurious notion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election and, allegedly, was continuing to meddle, purportedly with even more sophisticated, nefarious techniques.
How can US politicians, intelligence officials and media credibly claim that Russia interfered in 2016 and in mid-term congressional elections in 2018, but now in 2020 it evidently did not? The most logical explanation is simply that Russia never did.
Four years of hysterical American accusations against Russia have transpired to just that: bogus hysteria. US politicians, media and so-called intelligence gurus should be held to account for fabricating what is perhaps the biggest hoax ever played on the American public.
Though, one can be sure that they won’t be held accountable in a formal way. Venal power doesn’t work like that. And the US political system has built-in layers of self-protection for the political class never to be prosecuted. But in an informal no less real way, the system is being held to account by the wider public who are increasingly holding it in contempt and distrust. The political class and their plaything media are losing the moral authority to govern. This goes beyond mere Trump Derangement Syndrome. The systematic lying and deception over alleged Russian interference perpetrated on such a grand scale has fatally damaged the credibility of American institutions. Not just in the US, but around the world too.
Equally lamentable is the corrosive, damaging effect that the bogus hysteria has had on bilateral US-Russia relations and international tensions. Relations are at a dangerous all time low comparable to the depth of the Cold War. This has in turn sabotaged diplomatic efforts to strengthen arms controls and global security. The anti-Russia hysteria has led to the US abandonment of key nuclear weapons treaties, the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty and soon the New START.
The Russophobia that has been whipped up as a political weapon against Trump over the past four years is not something that can be easily put aside. It has engendered deep-seated hostility against Russia. During the presidential debates, Joe Biden vowed that the would take a tough stand against Russia for “interfering” in US politics. The incoming administration is being mentally held hostage by its own Russophobia which was cultivated on entirely false grounds.
It is disturbing how the US nation has been dragged into an obsession about alleged Russian malign activities, an obsession which turns out to be a mirage. Not for the first time either. Recall the Cold War Red Scares and McCarthyite witch-hunts which poisoned American society.
The implications are daunting. How can bilateral relations with Russia be restored? How can an intelligent dialogue be conducted with a nation whose leaders are so self-deluded and irrational?
Moreover, this is a nation whose leaders presume to have the prerogative to use overwhelming military force whenever they deem so. It is not unlike the driver of a juggernaut vehicle on a precipice who is hurtling along while out of his brain on misconceptions.
The Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee has held a public hearing to discuss 2020 election issues and irregularities, at the request of Republican senator Doug Mastriano. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani participated in the hearing. Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheIndepende…
امتلأت خلال يوم أمس، الصحافة الأميركيّة والإسرائيليّة ووسائل الإعلام المموّلة خليجياً بالتقارير التي تصف الشهور الباقية من ولاية الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب بالشديدة الحساسية متضمنة الإشارات لفرضية توجيه ضربة موجعة لإيران قبل نهاية ولاية ترامب وفي السياق استهداف قوى المقاومة، خصوصاً في سورية بضربات متلاحقة. والتقارير لا تُخفي أن المقصود هو قطع الطريق على إمكانية قيام تسويات بين ايران ومعها قوى محور المقاومة في المنطقة من جهة وادارة الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب جو بايدن من جهة مقابلة، بخلق أمر واقع يفرض سياقاً مختلفاً للعلاقات يصعب تخطيه ويدفع المنطقة نحو استقطاب جديد بطابع عسكري تجد الإدارة الجديدة أنها محكومة بالبقاء ضمنه.
–
الأكيد أن فرضية القيام بحماقة أمر لا يمكن استبعاده مع وجود شخص كدونالد ترامب في البيت الأبيض، علماً أنه أظهر عقلانية عالية في تحمل الضربات الموجعة تفادياً للتصعيد، عندما أُسقطت الطائرة الأميركيّة التجسسيّة العملاقة في الأجواء الإيرانيّة، بحيث بدا تهوره دوراً تمثيلياً يؤديه لشعبويّة انتخابية، وبالتوازي عملياً لا يمكن لإيران ولمحور المقاومة إلا أخذ هذه الفرضيات بحذر شديد والبقاء على جهوزية لمواجهة كل تهديد، لكن السؤال هو من الزاوية التحليلية هل يمكن منح هذا الاحتمال فرصاً حقيقية؟ وهل يشكل سياقاً منطقياً وارداً للتطورات؟
–
العقبة الأولى التي تعترض هذا الطريق، طالما لا نتحدّث عن عمليات كبرى تغيّر سياق الأحداث في المنطقة، وليس عن عمليات إعلاميّة أو ضربات لأهداف تكتيكيّة تمّ استطلاعها، هي أن قبول ترامب دخول المرحلة الانتقاليّة مع فريق الرئيس المنتخب جو بايدن رغم التمسك بالطعن بالنتائج، له موجبات من أهمها أن تصل التقارير الاستخبارية والتحليلات الأمنية الصادرة عن وكالات المخابرات والبنتاغون للرئيس المنتخب وفريق عمله بالصورة ذاتها التي تصل فيها للرئيس الحالي طيلة الفترة الانتقالية حتى دخول الرئيس المنتخب الى البيت الأبيض، وتالياً فإن القرارات الكبرى التي يفكر بها الرئيس المنتهية ولايته موجبة التداول والتشاور مع الرئيس المنتخب، خصوصاً ما قد يرتب تبعات وتداعيات تحكم ولاية الرئيس المنتخب، فكيف إذا كان قصدها أن تفعل ذلك.
–
العقبة الثانية هي أن خلق هذا المناخ المطلوب من ترامب وفريقه وحلفائه الإقليميين، خصوصاً ثنائي بنيامين نتنياهو وولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان، يستدعي القيام بعمل كبير لا يمكن لإيران وحلفائها عدم الرد عليه بقوة، خصوصاً أن تفادي الرد على الاستفزازات يطبع أداء محور المقاومة خلال المرحلة الانتقاليّة، وهذا يعني الحاجة الأميركية للقيام بعمل عسكري أمني كبير يجبر محور المقاومة على ردّ يخلق سجالاً عسكرياً، ويفرض إيقاعاً مختلفاً يقطع طريق السياسة أمام إدارة بايدن، وهذا يعني استدراج رد يصيب القواعد العسكرية الأميركية والأساطيل الأميركية في المنطقة، بصورة تلزم واشنطن الدخول في حالة حرب، لكن بلوغ هذه المرحلة لن يكون من دون أن تسبقه مرحلة تكون فيها منشآت كيان الاحتلال الحيويّة ومستوطناته قد تلقت آلاف الصواريخ الثقيلة والدقيقة، وأن تكون منشآت النفط في الخليج، وخصوصاً القواعد العسكرية الخليجية في دول التطبيع قد تلقت نصيبها من الردّ. وهذا في حال حدوثه سيخلق تدحرجاً لتطورات يصعب تحمل نتائجها. فمدن الزجاج قد تتهاوى ومعها حكوماتها واقتصاداتها، وعمق الجليل قد يكون هدفاً لتوغل المقاومة، وكلها ارتدادات يصعب احتواؤها.
–
العقبة الثالثة أن مثل هذه المواجهة التي تفاداها ترامب طيلة ولايته يحتاج للقيام بها إلى سبب جوهري يتمثل بعمل عدائي قامت به إيران يمكن تسويقه وشرحه للرأي العام الأميركي والعالمي، وهذا لا يبدو وارد الحدوث، كما أن ترامب يعلم بأن المباحثات والتنسيق الاستباقي لمنع التلاعب بمستقبل التفاهم النووي خلال المرحلة الانتقالية من جانب إدارته هو موضوع تنسيق يجري في باريس بين مبعوثي إدارة بايدن برعاية جون كيري ومبعوثي الخارجية الإيرانية برعاية محمد جواد ظريف، حيث تدرس كل الفرضيات وتبحث كل الاحتمالات.
–
يقول أحد الخبراء، إذا وقعت الحرب فتشوا عن دبي وأبو ظبي على الخريطة، وعن ديمونا وناتانيا، ونيوم، قبل أن تسألوا عن تل أبيب والرياض.
There seems to be a quasi consensus that Trump will not prevail and that Biden and Harris will get into the White House no matter what. To my surprise, even the Russian media seems to be considering that the Trump presidency is over.
Yet, I am not so sure at all.
Why?
Because at this point in time, I think that it would fair to conclude that anybody actually willing to look at what has been revealed by this election will have to agree that this election was stolen, rigged, falsified – chose your expression – and that going to the courts to challenge this obscene miscarriage of the democratic process is a fundamental civil right and something which any democrat (small “d”) should support.
And yet, because we live in a media-created pseudo-reality in which absolutely crucial things like the rule of law seem to have become secondary to ideological imperatives, no matter how extreme, there are those who simply refuse to see the obvious. Yes, the 9/11 false flag trained the western societies well and many now simply lack the lucidity and courage to face reality.
Courts, however, are bound by the rule of law, at least in theory, and don’t have the luxury to simply pretend like crucial evidence presented to them simply does not exist.
True, the lower, state, courts are unlikely to resist the pressure put upon them to come up with the “right” conclusions, but never say never – all it takes is one single principled judge and Trump or, more accurately, the Giuliani team, might get the break they need. Still, it is pretty obvious that Giuliani’s real hopes are with the Supreme Court. This makes sense, local judges are much easy to influence and sway than Supreme Court Justices who are unassailable and who realize that they will make history, the only question being is: how till they go down in history books, as a “profile in courage” or as impotent cowards who betrayed their oath?
I will say that I am, to put it mildly, not impressed by Trump’s demeanor during these crucial days: he completely ceded the narrative to his opponents (a couple of incoherent and poorly phrased “tweets” do not qualify). True, Trump never displayed the qualities of a real leader, so this is hardly surprising.
Giuliani, however, is a tough SOB and he seems to be determined to take this fight right up to the Supreme Court. This is why I believe that it is very dangerous to make any assumptions about what the Justices might or might not do. Is it possible that even the Supreme Court justices would betray their oath and cave in to the Dem’s pressure? Yes, I suppose so. Concepts such as truth, honor, integrity, courage and heroism are very much out of fashion in the modern world, especially in the US. This is why the traditionally hallowed term “hero” is applied left and right to every bureaucrat or civil servant simply doing his/her job: real heroes are long gone.
Then consider this: if the SC sides with Trump and overturns the hundred of thousands of illegal votes, the US will be immediately plunged into an orgy of chaos and violence, all of it encouraged and coordinated by the legacy corporate ziomedia à la CNN. The thugs of Antifa/BLM will immediately engage in Kristallnacht-like rampages in “protest” against the “racist system”. Their main target? White, Christian, males, of course!
Some justices might even feel torn between standing up for what is both legal and moral and the practical considerations of the consequences of an adjudication in Trump’s favor. Their oath ought to be their guiding principles, but considering how often the SC voted along party/ideological lines in the past, I am not very confident that the Justices will strictly do the only legally and morally right thing: uphold the law and vote their conscience.
Finally, whatever we may think of the election itself, it is obvious that the US elites have created the appearance of a fait accompli, hence the kind of nonsense like, say, Biden and his “Office of the President Elect”. It is therefore reasonable to assume that even if the Supreme Court fully sides with the Trump campaign, the US elites will never accept this. They will try to find a way to impeach, legally or otherwise, those Justices who voted “wrong”.
I think that there is also another consideration which we have to remain aware of: Trump’s entire presidency is been one long and never ending prostitution of the United States to the desires and whims of Netanyahu and his gang of thugs. True, as Israel Shamir pointed out, the Israelis failed to deliver anything in return to Trump. And yet, as Philip Giraldi recently explained, Trump is still very much Israel’s prostitute, which is why there are an increasing number of Israeli experts (see here and here) who believe that Trump might strike at Iran as a “farewell” present to the Israelis.
Is that really possible? Could Trump really do something so crazy?
You betcha he could!
One one hand, I have always maintained that Trump is the Zionists’ “disposable president”, meaning a one term president who will do everything the Likudniks want of him and who will then be jettisoned and replaced by a truly “kosher president” like Biden/Harris. On the other hand, however, there is the precedent of the US meekly taking the Iranian missile attacks in retaliation for the murder of General Soleimani which seems to indicate that the Pentagon just does not have the stomach for a full-scale war against Iran.
So which will it be?
Nobody knows. The only thing we can be sure of is that we are certainly entering very dangerous times.
Those who hope that a Biden/Harris presidency might be better are deeply deluded.
Why?
Because, as many have already pointed this out, even if Trump is ejected from the White House, “Trumpism”, as an ideology, is here to stay. Even if you believe that Biden/Harris beat Trump in a fair election, surely must you still realize that there are tens of millions of Americans who feel that the election was stolen and that Biden/Harris are usurpers.
Personally, I take a very dim view of “Trumpism”, but whatever its (many) flaws, this ideology, however vague, has “redpilled” millions of Americans who now realize that they are living in a fake democracy or, to use a Russian expression, “democracy” in the US only means “power of the Democrats”. Simply put: we can call them “1%ers” or the “US Nomenklatura” or the “deep state” or whatever other term which comes to mind, but the bottom line is obvious: the US is not a democracy or a republic, it is a dictatorship of the few over the many, the “best democracy money can buy” and a system based not on one man one vote, but one dollar one vote. Whether they realize it or not, most Americans are serfs of an occupying parasitic regime which sees them solely as a (cheap) commodity.
These ideas used to be corralled into what the Ziomedia liked to call the “extremist fringe” but now millions of Americans are becoming aware of this reality, CNN & Co notwithstanding. Put the Biden/Harris ticket into the White House and millions of people will go into some kind of “resistance mode” – whether that be political activism, civil resistance, local/state insubordination to the Federal power or even armed resistance.
One of the top priorities of the Dems in power will be to crack down, hard, on the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution. Right there we can expect a lot of local/regional/state resistance because, unlike their ruling “elites” (i.e. masters), most Americans passionately care for what are really the cornerstones of the US political system. Yes, there is a reason why the Founding Fathers placed the First Amendment in first position and the Second one right after!
The Dems will castrate the First Amendment through their control of all the major Internet platforms (YouTube, Google, FaceBook, Twitter, Amazon, etc.) and, since this will not be government censorship, at least technically, but decisions of the private sector, even the ACLU will have nothing to say about this.
The Second Amendment will be trickier to deal with, because there is no private or non-governmental institution which can do to the Second Amendment what big tech companies have done to the First one. However, all it takes is a few well-orchestrated “shootings” or any armed refusal to be disarmed, and the label “domestic terrorist” will be swiftly applied to those who dared to resist Uncle Shmuel.
Again – we are about to enter an extremely dangerous period, both inside the US and on the international front.
Trump’s handlers must realize that the AngloZionist Empire is already finished and that all that’s left is an agonizing United States. The same probably goes for the Biden/Harris handlers. Hence both parties have a huge interest in, first, creating some crisis which can distract from what is really going on and, second, in using whatever power they still have to “fire their last shells” before the ammo box goes empty.
Conclusion: too many variables to call it
The truth is that absolutely anything can happen next. There are simply way too many variables to try to make a prediction. Will Trump attack Iran? I want to believe that this ship has sailed, but I will never say never to something as evil and stupid as an attack on Iran. However, under pretty much any scenario, we can be pretty sure that come January there will be a power vacuum in the Executive and roughly half of all Americans will consider that the election has been stolen. That kind of power vacuum, or even a duopoly, is very dangerous and typically results in even more chaos and violence. Eventually, some kind of “tough” regime comes to power. But this is a threat that we can discuss further down the road.
John Shuck writes: Gilad Atzmon returns to discuss what he sees as a civil war brewing in the United States over dividing lines that are based on identitarian politics. In this educational and informative interview, he elaborates on a recent post of his, It’s Not About Trump or Biden, and he discusses the history of identitarian politics and why the U.S. is so polarized today. He is the author of The Wandering Who: The Study of Jewish Identity Politics and Being In Time: A Post-Political Manifesto. In May 2018 he was on my program that commemorated the 70th anniversary of the Nakba “The Catastrophe” and Palestinian resistance.
Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on November 11, 2020, celebrating Hezbollah’s “Martyrs Day”, which honors all martyrs of the Resistance.
On November 11, 1982, the largest resistance action in the history of the Israeli-Arab struggle took place, when the martyrdom of 19-year-old fighter Ahmad Qassir killed more than 100 occupying Israeli officers and soldiers by detonating their headquarters in the Lebanese city of Tyre. We transcribe below two sections of the speech devoted to the recent Israeli military maneuvers and US elections.
[…] The second issue (I want to mention) is the Israeli military maneuvers which took place a few days ago, and lasted from Sunday (1st) to Thursday (November 5). Obviously I will not get into the details of these maneuvers, its stages, its objectives, etc. It would take too long. But I will confine myself to the following points.
Of course, these were massive maneuvers, one of the biggest and most important Israeli maneuvers (in history). They are similar to those that took place in 2017 simultaneously in northern occupied Palestine and in the Golan Heights, which they consider to be a single front: these maneuvers were as large or perhaps a little larger (than those in November 2020). It was pretty much the same (exercise) in both maneuvers (i.e. simulating a Hezbollah attack). Of course, during the maneuvers, there were analyzes, threats and clues (according to which) Israel could take advantage of this (maximum) state of readiness and this enormous concentration of forces in northern occupied Palestine and in the Golan Heights to launch an operation against Lebanon or against Syria, to say the least [there was also talk of a possible attack on Iran]. There were analyzes, assumptions of this kind, and of course, these maneuvers were followed with the greatest attention in Israel, although the Lebanese cared little about them, except for Hezbollah who followed it all closely. The enemy Prime Minister came to visit (the forces engaged in these maneuvers), as did the Minister of Defense, and the Chief of Staff and other officials were there throughout the week, and they made countless statements.
With regard to these maneuvers, I want to make a couple of brief comments.
Israel has moved from permanent aggression to a defensive posture
First, when you consider these maneuvers, what was one of their main purposes? They announced it themselves, I’m not talking about secret information. One of the main objectives is that they simulated an invasion by the forces of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon (Hezbollah) against the Israeli positions and settlements in Galilee, and the purpose of these maneuvers was for the Israeli army to recover these positions and these settlements, meaning to expel the Resistance forces from them, and launch another response in the border region. It is not about invading (Lebanon) and reaching I do not know where, but simply about organizing a (limited) response in the border area, less far than the Israeli security zone of yesteryear [from 1985 to 2000, Israel occupied all of South Lebanon, in a continuous enclave 10 to 20 kilometers wide]. This is what these maneuvers consisted of, and they involved the air force, infantry, artillery, etc.
What I want to emphasize about this, coming back to what the (Hezbollah) martyrs accomplished (by their struggle and their sacrifice), one of the great achievements of the martyrs is (the following): in 2017, Israel organized military maneuvers where, from the first days, it was all about launching defensive measures, setting up a defensive plan to protect its positions and its settlements in Galilee, in the north of occupied Palestine, (against a Hezbollah attack). And again in 2020, Israel is carrying out similar maneuvers, despite the economic situation, the coronavirus, the difficulties, etc. What does all this prove? This proves that the Lebanese Resistance, for the first time (in the history of the Arab-Israeli struggle), has shifted the Israeli army from an offensive to a defensive position. This demonstrates the power of the Resistance. In the old days, if anyone (among the Arab-Muslim rulers) claimed to invade or attack Israel, upset the equations (in force), enter occupied Palestine (as a retaliation in case) Israel invaded our territory, Israel would laugh (at these empty claims) and mock them. You remember that in previous wars Israel behaved as if Lebanon was negligible, and (considered) that a single musical band was enough to defeat it. This Resistance in Lebanon, the martyrs of this Resistance, the mujaheedeen of this Resistance of which “some have reached their end [martyrdom], and others are still waiting [and they have not changed at all (in their commitment)” (Quran, 33, 23)], have brought Lebanon to a stage where the enemy regards us in a very different way. The enemy is obsessed with the idea of an attack from Lebanon, and when he thinks of attacking Lebanon himself, his mind immediately goes to destruction with planes, artillery, missiles, and he does not think of any invasion or occupation of vast territories, because his ambitions on the ground are very limited. And more so, he switched to a defensive way of thinking. This is why he has designed defensive plans to protect his positions, his settlements, the region of Galilee. He keeps rethinking these plans, he has been making maneuvers in this direction since 2017, and in their light, he is making amendments, and he insists on carrying out new maneuvers in 2020. This is a very important point to know the weight of Lebanon, of the Lebanese Resistance and our strength in the calculations of the enemy. It’s something he would never have thought of in the past. And of course, this must lead us to make exact calculations when thinking about the equations of force in Lebanon, whether it is about negotiations over maritime borders or points of contention over the land border, the equation of deterrence, the protection equation, etc.
An admission of failure and unpreparedness
The second point is the enemy’s insistence on carrying out these 2020 maneuvers, and the fact that the enemy army’s Chief of staff has declared that even if 1,000 soldiers must be infected with the Covid- 19, he was determined to hold the maneuvers. This confirms another truth long evoked by Israeli generals after the 2006 war against Lebanon and after the 2014 Gaza war: they themselves say that the Israeli army, the Israeli infantry is suffering from a real and deep crisis. There is a crisis of preparation, a crisis of officers, soldiers and combatants at the personal, psychological, moral level, a crisis of the (fighting) spirit, a crisis of confidence in officers and leaders, problems of discipline, (a lack of willingness to) advance (in the battlefield), to sacrifice oneself, to go to the front line, etc. This is why in all their maneuvers, the Israelis provide soldiers and officers with every guarantee of security, assuring them that nothing will happen to them, and that their advance will be secure [as if there was such a thing as a safe war]. This is the result of the enormous flaws and weaknesses in the spirit and morale of the troops of the IDF ground forces. This is why Israel needs these maneuvers to remedy this situation, to give its soldiers confidence in themselves, to restore their morale, to give them motivation, guarantees, assure them that they are capable (of facing Hezbollah) with their plan and maneuvers. This is a real crisis affecting the Israeli infantry today.
Regarding the navy, we know that its field of action is (very) limited. In 2006, a single missile took the entire Israeli navy out of the war equation, when we hit the Sa’ar 5 (corvette). And in case of war in the future, the Israeli navy will be unable to achieve the slightest real accomplishment. And as for the Air Force, we do not underestimate nor demean it, and we recognize that it is one of the most powerful air forces in the region. And the United States gives Israel (everything) without limit, so that all developments in air capacity are open to the enemy. But this does not constitute a guarantee, it does not protect the Zionist project in the region, it does not even protect (the survival of) the usurping entity. All the recent wars and battles have confirmed that the Air force alone is incapable of shaping victory, from the 2006 war to the wars in Gaza, all the wars that have taken place in our region, as well as the war that is entering its 6th year in Yemen. All of these wars demonstrate that air power alone is incapable of shaping victory or winning a battle. It is the ground forces that are essential and decisive, whether in defense, attack or victory. Today the IDF is going through real crises in this regard, and we must build (and consolidate our strength) on it.
Hezbollah was on high alert during these maneuvers
Last point concerning these maneuvers, and that I wish the Lebanese and the people to know clearly: because of the assumptions, the analyzes and the possibilities (of Israeli attack against Lebanon or Syroa), I want to say, without creating a state of terror in Lebanon, but I must reveal this fact: the Islamic Resistance was, from Saturday (October 31st), that is before the start of the maneuvers, until the days of the maneuvers, and until after the end of the maneuvers, or after Thursday (November 5), until Friday and Saturday, we were on high alert. Some Resistance units in Lebanon were on full alert, 100%, and others were 75% ready. And at the level of organization, management and control, all the commanders were at their posts. Of course, Israel knew this, and we wanted them to know it, because what mattered to us was to clearly send the following message: we are watchful, we are ready, we are on alert, our finger is on the trigger, and if you are thinking of engaging in any stupid act, any aggression, our response will be ready, quick and immediate. In Syria too… And in Lebanon, of course, we did all this for 7 to 8 days without the Lebanese and the Lebanese people, the villages and the towns feeling the slightest thing that could disturb them, worry them or arouse fear. This is one of the strengths of the Popular Resistance, which is precise, level-headed, measured, far from all excesses and bluster, serious, dedicated and sincere.
Likewise, in Syria, according to my information, the readiness measures of the Syrian leadership and the armed forces were maximum, as well as for their allies on the ground. The message to the enemy was clear: in front of you there are people ready and willing to fight, people neither weakened nor ready to surrender, and unaffected by all the events happening in our region. So much for this point.
US elections
My third point is the US elections. I speak quickly to have time to discuss all the issues. The whole world followed… Of course, I will not do an (exhaustive) analysis on the US elections, but I will talk about what concerns us and concerns our people, our region and our Axis (of Resistance). The whole world has been following what happened and what is happening now in the US presidential elections. And that’s something normal, because the outcome of the elections will influence the whole world. I would like to make several comments on this subject.
A paper Empire and a junk Democracy
First, the unfolding of the US elections, the speeches of the candidates and the contradictory and invective election campaigns, the media hype, etc., I consider that more than ever, all of this has shown the (real and eloquent) image of a number of truths and realities in the United States, whether at the level of the political system, of the forces and parties, and of the people. The peoples of the world, the peoples of our region and all of us need to pay attention (and think thouroughly about these realities). Because in the end, these United States are a global calamity. In our eyes, the US are a problem for all the peoples of the world, both for their friends & allies and for their enemies, both at the same time.
My first point is a simple call to look closely at the numbers and data that were provided during the election campaign, to think about them and learn the lessons, in order to know what these United States really are, because there are people who present them to us as the greatest example that our Arab and Muslim countries and Third World countries (in general) should follow. So let’s see what is the truth of this (alleged) most prominent model. (Let us seek) its truth in its values, in its actions, in its habits, in the results of its behavior and practices, (let us seek) the truth of its democracy, the truth of its political system, the truth of the behavior of its authorities with its people, in its different (ethnico-social) components. All these questions require thought on our part, as (staggering) numbers have been given, incredible things have been seen, and (striking) scenes are visible on TV channels and social media, be it everything that has to do with the economic and financial situation, the scale of the debts weighing on the American treasury –we talk a lot about the debts of Lebanon, but look at those of the United States–, the social situation and the standard of living of tens of millions of inhabitants of the United States… We see images on television of very modern cities, with very modern streets, in which we see people living in makeshift camps, left and right, washing themselves in the streets, and having no home, no social security, etc. Either way, these are staggering numbers, whether talking about the number of people infected with the coronavirus [over 11 million], the number of people affected by terminal illnesses –Biden spoke of huge numbers a few days ago–, mental and nervous illnesses, drug addicts, the scale of the various forms of criminality in American society –murders, injuries, incidents, shootings, thefts, rapes, etc. –, the number of prisoners in jails, the extent of corruption in state administration and political officials, etc. This is (the reality of) the United States that some present to us as (a model of) freedom, democracy, justice, development, prosperity, etc., etc., etc. (Not to mention the) fundamental racism that has been brought to light by the events of recent months. All this deserves –I don’t have time to give the figures and talk about them in detail, others will be able to do it, and everyone can find out by consulting the data, the archives, the images, the evidence, etc.; these are not empty statements from an enemy of the United States who would come and make false accusations, they are their own statements, their own figures and their own statistics as to their situation, their worries, their real domestic ills and problems; and this is the priority which may be imposed on the new administration. This is the first thing that appeared during these elections.
Allegations of electoral fraud are a gross heist attempt
The second point is the humiliation of the (so-called) US democracy that Washington calls on the whole world to take as an example, asserting the primacy of people’s decision, of elections, etc. If the US administration itself, which today is President Trump’s and also his entire administration –because we cannot say that he has an (unprecedented) state of mind, that he is mad, resolved to keep his throne, etc.: the entire Republican Party (supports him). If two (Republicans) Senators congratulated Biden, (it should be noted that) it is the whole Republican Party, officially, all its leaders and executives, all its echelons who support the electoral battle that Trump is pursuing, and who do not recognize the results. What is this (pseudo-)democracy? I remind you of one thing: as (was stated by) all the people who followed (these elections), the special media envoys, even those from the channels close to Trump, during these elections, some citizens voted by mail, some voted early –as did Trump himself– and finally some voted (in person) on election day. When (the vote-counting agents) begin their tally, they count first the votes cast on election day, then the early votes, and finally the mail votes. It is common knowledge that the majority of mail votes are in favor of the Democrats. For early votes, it’s mixed. For direct votes on election day, the majority is in favor of the Republicans. As soon as the vote count of election day ballots ended, Trump rose up and exclaimed, “Stop the vote count! Stop the vote count!” Why? Because he considered himself the winner, hands down, which is natural when only the votes cast on election day are counted. But when you count the 70 million –if not more– early votes, and the mail votes, that will certainly change the outcome. He therefore wants to throw the voices of tens of millions of citizens into oblivion in order to be able to declare “I am the winner, period”. And he has declared himself the winner, and does not acknowledge the results, considering that all that is happening is just a (large) fraud. And the (whole) Republican Party stands behind all this. It would be wrong to say that it is only the action of one person, of a fool, feverish, nervous man, etc., no! And now we don’t know where the Trump administration and the Republican Party want to take all of the United States if they maintain this line. (Let’s keep all this farce in mind) so that no one comes (berating us) with (the alleged virtues of) Western democracy or American democracy, nor present the US as a Master in matters of elections and respect for the vote of the people and the will of the people, neither inside the United States, nor outside.
Israel will always be the main concern of any US administration
Third, what matters to us today about the new administration –I will speak later about the two remaining months of this Trump administration, along with (our) psychological and emotional reaction (to Trump’s defeat)–, (about) the larger question of the new administration (which will take power in January 2021), (it must be emphasized that) in our region in particular –because what can be predicted for other peoples of the world, other states and governments, it is their own assessment to make–, but as far as we are concerned, our greatest calamity is that in our region, for a long time, and for decades, US policies in our region are an Israeli policy. The basis (of thought and action) is Israel, (and all that matters is how to ensure) the strength of Israel, the empowerment of Israel, the security of Israel, the superiority of Israel. It is one of the constants of US policy, whether it is Democrats or Republicans, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Biden: whoever (the US President) is, they all rush and compete to see who supports Israel the most, who covers Israel the most, who defends Israel the most, who protects Israel the most, who strengthens Israel the most, who supports Israel the most.
Therefore, as far as we are concerned, things are not going to change. Maybe their policy towards Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or whatever will change. But here, in our region, for everything that has to do with the usurping entity of occupied Palestine, and for the whole area that includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, Yemen, North Africa, this whole Arab-Islamic region, as far as the United States are concerned, the only fundamental constant, or at least the main one if it is not the only one, is Israel and the domination of Israel. Therefore, building promising hopes in fundamental and strategic changes (in the policies of a Biden administration is futile): let no one be deluded or lie to himself, nor anything like that.
It is true that on certain details (we can expect some minor changes)… For example, I absolutely do not consider as likely the hypothesis that the Biden administration backtracks on the recognition (of all) of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as an integral part of the Zionist entity and the eternal capital of Israel, or moves the US embassy in Al-Quds back to Tel Aviv, or no longer recognizes the Golan as Israeli territory… (All of these Trump steps won’t be reversed). But it is possible that concerning the settlements, the West Bank, the question of the two states and their borders, these are details (on which a margin of maneuver is possible). But even in these details, the core principle and top priority will remain how to make Israel as strong as possible, as dominant as possible, superior to all, etc. So let’s not waste time counting on the new (Biden) administration, imagining various prospects (of a new US foreign policy in the Middle East), and luring ourselves into dreams and illusions.
Axis of Resistance welcomes Trump’s humiliating defeat
Of course, emotionally, there’s no doubt –and I’m talking about my personal feelings here– that when you look at the Trump administration, the Trump government, it turns out to be the worst government (in US history), or, if not the worst, it is one of the worst US governments in history. This government was the most heinous, the vilest, the most despotic, the most arrogant, the most contemptuous of its friends and allies –for example, there was a difference in the way Trump behaved with Saudi Arabia [repeated humiliations], and his way of addressing Iran: when he addressed Iran, he was more balanced, more measured, more cautious; and he will step down from power with bitterness over not having been able to find a single Iranian official to answer him on the phone. It was the most tyrannical, the most despotic, the most arrogant, the most criminal, the most terrorist government… Such was the Trump administration.
Let’s remember what he did for 4 years. For 4 years, he put the whole world on the brink of war, whether he (deliberately) played on the level of psychological warfare, (on the permanent threat) of the brink of the abyss, or whether he was serious (and willing to go to war). Against North Korea, he brought things to the brink of war. Likewise with China, with Iran, with Venezuela, with Cuba, with Syria, with many places in the world. He brought the whole world to the brink of war! As far as states and peoples are concerned, he has intensified blockades, acts of manifest aggression and the most explicit interference in internal affairs… Of course, we recognize in Trump a very important quality, which is that he showed the true face of the United States. This is their true face. Arrogance, tyranny, (permanent) aggression, despotism, imperialism, terrorism, bestiality, crime, (mass) murder, corruption… This is what Trump showed. His predecessors wore make-up and measured their words, but his quality is that he showed the US as they were to the peoples of the world, (without wearing a mask or using false rhetoric).
Therefore, when one sees the long list of his crimes, such as, in Palestine, the attribution of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) to Israel as its eternal capital, the relocation of the US embassy (from Tel Aviv to Al -Quds), the granting of the (Syrian occupied) Golan (to Israel), as well as the Shebaa farms (occupied Lebanese territory granted to Israel by Trump), the strangulation he exerted against the Palestinians, whether the Palestinian Authority, the PLO, the Palestinian people… But despite that, Trump was defeated, and I will come back to it. In Iran, he imposed the most severe sanctions against a country of 80 or 85 million people, the year of the coronavirus, not to mention the (constant) threats of war, and (a permanent flirtation) with the edge of the abyss! Likewise in Syria, constant threats of war, and Caesar sanctions and more blockades. Open support for the Saudi-Emirati war against Yemen and the oppressed people of Yemen. He has revived sedition in Iraq, and is attempting to revive sedition in Lebanon. He tried to overthrow the state of Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. (He has spread blood and chaos) everywhere, to the point that it is (almost impossible) to count his crimes!
Trump’s foreign policy is a monumental failure
But of course, if we are to give a title to all of these actions, it is failure. He failed in all these attempts! He failed to break the will of the Palestinian people, and that is why today no one talks about the Deal of the Century anymore. Where did it go? In the past, when the Deal of the Century was taking shape, I said it was based on 3 pillars: 1. Trump, 2. Netanyahu and 3. (Saudi Crown Prince) Bin Salman. Today, with the grace of God, Trump will go. Either he will leave or he will take the United States in his downfall if he does not recognize the results. The 2nd pillar, Netanyahu, is now in a worse situation than ever. Even with Trump’s presence, he was at the lowest point in his entire political history, and he’s doing even worse now. The same goes for Bin Salman, who is perhaps the most worried of all among the leaders of the region. Who knows if Biden will live up to his election promises to punish Bin Salman and indict him for Khashoggi’s murder and (gruesome) dismemberment with a saw, end US support for the Saudi war in Yemen and stop selling him weapons… If Biden keeps his election promises, Mohammad Bin Salman has every reason to be very worried. So there is a defeated pillar, which will leave the scene (Trump), and two shaken pillars, ready to collapse (Netanyahu and Bin Salman). The likelihood of fall is greatest for Netanyahu, because the political system of the usurping entity (racialist democracy) is different from that of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (absolute monarchy). And this Deal of the Century will disappear with its pillars. The will of the Palestinian people has not been broken despite all the difficulties, the state of siege, the punishments, the suffering. Iran’s will has not been broken, despite the harshest sanctions (in history) and the harsh conditions caused by the coronavirus. Syria’s will has not been broken. The Iraqis are struggling to defeat the daily sedition that is manufactured at home [via US attempts to revive ISIS, etc.]. In Lebanon, we have defeated sedition. I will speak (in more detail) about Lebanon in the last part (of my speech). In Venezuela, (Trump) failed, he failed in Cuba, he failed in North Korea, he failed to subdue China, and he failed, failed and failed (everywhere). Overall, the headline (of Trump’s foreign policy) is (universal) failure.
In the Middle East, no one will regret the assassin of Qassem Soleimani
That’s why I’ll draw two conclusions from this (short) presentation. The first conclusion is that yes, on a personal level, I am happy with the departure, the fall, the humiliating fall of Trump. We don’t care about the new administration, they are all the same, (US foreign policy) will not change. But we have every reason to be happy (about Trump’s defeat), especially given the crime that I left last in the (long list) of his crimes, the (biggest) crime of our time that Trump committed by assassinating the Grand General Hajj Qassem Soleimani, and the Grand General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, his (multiple) assaults against Iraq and Iran, and the fact that he publicly bragged about this crime. Even during his election campaign I was following (his speeches), on several occasions he pointed out (with pride) to this heinous crime he committed. Therefore, on an emotional level, we have every reason –no one can stop anyone (from rejoicing)– to rejoice in this humiliating defeat of Trump, inflicted by his own people. We don’t pretend we brought him down. It was his (own) people who brought him down. This (American) people whom Trump also demeaned and humiliated, as he strove to humiliate his allies and friends, and continued his aggression against peoples around the world. So much for the emotional level.
Trump demonstrated the weakness of the United States
But at a practical level, we need to know, through our assessment of these four years (of Trump’s rule), that under such an aggressive (US) government, having such a high level of tyranny and willingness to enter into war… Because it is obvious that the possibility of the Trump administration going to war was higher and will remain higher than that of the next administration. This administration was very inclined to go to war. They had no caution, no limits. Despite this, our peoples and the Axis of Resistance have persisted in their determination (to resist), and have succeeded in thwarting (Trump’s plans), and in preventing this project from materializing and achieving (its goals). It means that our will is stronger than their tyranny, stronger than their blockade, stronger than their arrogance. This means that (despite everything) Trump or his government can say, or (even) the government to come, the USA are not a manifest destiny, and the peoples of the world, the governments of the world and the oppressed of the world can stand up and say “No!” (to Washington’s diktats), (and successfully resist) whatever the consequences. And in the end, it is (the peoples of the world) who are victorious. And as for him (Trump) who fought them, assaulted them, and lashed out at them, it is he who will be defeated, humiliated and broken. This must also be one of the lessons of these elections.
Anything can happen in the last two months of the Trump administration
The last thing I want to say about the election concerns what’s left of the last two months (of the Trump administration). Because it has been said in the media that top Pentagon officials have expressed their fears (of a war before Trump’s term ends), as has the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Nancy Pelosi), and other US officials in the region. Many said that by sacking his Secretary of State for Defense (Mark Esper), replacing him with another (Christopher C. Miller), who became Acting Secretary of State for Defense, he was preparing to do something for the past two months. But what? This is a big question that torments the whole world. I don’t know what he can do in those two months, but anything is possible. With someone like Trump, you have to expect anything. It may be that this sacking was just an impulsive act due to his injured ego, because he figured that Secretary of State Esper was not always docile, that he was opposed to certain things that Trump wanted to do and had prepared his resignation letter, and therefore Trump ate Esper at lunch before Esper ate Trump at dinner. It is entirely possible, it would not be surprising (on the part of a narcisstic buffoon like Trump).
But it is also possible that this move has to do with major and dangerous decisions Trump is about to make. Among these major and dangerous decisions, the whole world immediately thought of the possibility of action outside the United States. Because there are two hypotheses. Either he sacked Esper because last time, when there were (massive) demonstrations (in the United States), and Trump wanted to send the army to suppress the demonstrators, this Secretary of State threatened to resign as far as I can remember, or at least he was opposed to the intervention of the army, I am sure he was against it. I heard he threatened to quit. And maybe Trump saw that one of the reasons for his defeat was that he couldn’t put an end to (these protests) once and for all in recent months, due to (the expectation of dangerous) internal repercussions (if the army had intervened). And it is well known that the main reasons for Trump’s downfall are domestic reasons. Maybe Trump blames Esper for his defeat, and takes revenge on him by punishing him like that. But on the other hand, Esper’s sacking may have been due to Trump’s willingness to use US armed forces inside the US (to stay in power), it’s a possible hypothesis. And the other assumption is (that Trump is going to make a major and dangerous decision) outside the United States: the Republican Party, the far right and their ally Israel (may be thinking) that they should do now something important in the Middle East that they haven’t been able to do in these 4 years, and that they want to catch up in the last two months. This is also a possibility. I have no preference (to favor either of these hypotheses), it takes analysis and these are new things that have just come out, but there may be nothing (serious behind it all), it may be a domestic matter and it may be that something (big) is brewing outside (and the main assumption would be an attack against Iran). Everything is possible.
Resistance Axis remains on high alert, ready for any US-Israeli war
Within the Resistance Axis, states, governments, rulers, Presidents, Resistance factions, and Resistance Axis peoples, to say the least, because we are part of it, I call them all to vigilance, to be wakeful, to be careful. In everything we say, in everything we do, in everything we follow (closely), we must be attentive and watchful, take our precautions (and prepare for anything), because that is what wisdom and reason require from us. We must imagine the worst, even if nothing should happen, and be prepared to face it. We must be on high alert during these two months, hoping that with the grace of God they will end well. We must also stand at a high level of preparedness, ready to face any danger, any aggression, any harm, and pay back blow for blow and even more if the imbecility of the United States or Israel goes as far as something like that (a military attack). […]
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 